2004 (1) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 28/97-Cus to a Five Star Hotel for specific items.
2. Interpretation of Customs Notification for Capital Goods.
3. Consideration of Circular No. 62/2002 issued by CBEC for granting benefits.
4. Request for remand for 'de novo' consideration based on circular.
5. Satisfaction of export obligation and fulfillment of conditions for benefit.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a Five Star Hotel, was denied the benefit of Notification No. 28/97-Cus by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai for specific items like light fittings, tubes, lamps, and transformers. Both authorities concluded that these items did not fall under the category of capital goods as per the Customs Notification for Capital Goods issued by the Ministry of Finance.

2. The appellant's counsel referred to Paper Book Cus. Cir. No. 62/2002 issued by CBEC, highlighting that certain items should be eligible for benefits if EPCG licenses were issued by DGFT. The Revenue failed to provide a report on this circular despite multiple adjournments, leading to uncertainty regarding the eligibility of the items for benefits under the circular.

3. The JDR for the Respondent mentioned efforts to obtain a report on the circular but was unsuccessful. The suggestion was made to remand the matter for 'de novo' consideration to properly examine the circular's implications on the case.

4. The appellant's counsel expressed willingness for remand, assuring the ability to demonstrate that the imported items qualified as capital goods as per the circular's provisions. It was also confirmed that the export obligation had been met, further supporting the claim for benefits.

5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the clarifications provided in the circular by CBEC regarding the eligibility of certain items for benefits under specific conditions. As the appellant had obtained the EPCG license and fulfilled the export obligation, the matter was remanded to the original authority for re-evaluation in line with the circular, with a directive to decide the case promptly within six months, ultimately allowing the appeal through remand.