2014 (1) TMI 969 - AT - Customs

Exemption in terms of S. No. 74 of Notification No 6/2006 - Classification of goods - Mis declaration of goods - Whether such sports flooring material can be held to be sports goods or not - Held that - Notification No. 146/94-Cus. grants exemption to sports goods, sports equipments and sports requisites, whereas Central Excise notification grants exemption only to sports goods. Inasmuch as the said circular of the Board clarified the flooring materials as being sports requisite, the same are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 146/94-Cus., which allow exemption to the sports requisite. For the purpose of countervailing duty, Notification No. 6/2006 is relevant which grants exemption only to sports goods - goods being sports requisite are not covered by Notification No. 6/2006 for the purpose of additional Duty. Admittedly the continuous synthetic surface used for covering floors for indoor games cannot be held to be a sports goods. As such, the benefit stands rightly denied by the lower authorities - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as sports goods for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., S. No. 74.

Analysis:
The Appellants imported sports flooring, adhesive, and weld rods seeking clearance under CTH 95065990 and exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., S. No. 74. The lower authorities denied the benefit of the notification, confirming the demand for countervailing duty against the Appellant. The dispute revolves around whether the imported sports flooring material qualifies as sports goods under the said notification.

The imported material consisted of continuous sheets of synthetic material with multiple layers, described as sports flooring synthetic in the catalogue. The Appellant argued that the material is used for covering floors in indoor games stadiums like table tennis, badminton, and volleyball stadiums. They relied on a Board circular defining "requisite" as items necessary for playing a game or sport, indicating that synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces essential for sports are considered sports requisites.

However, a distinction was made between Notification No. 146/94-Cus. granting exemption to sports goods, sports equipment, and sports requisites, and Central Excise notification providing exemption only to sports goods. The Tribunal concluded that the continuous synthetic surface used for indoor games flooring does not qualify as sports goods under Notification No. 6/2006 for additional duty purposes. Therefore, the benefit of the notification was rightly denied by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found no error in the lower order and rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant, emphasizing that the continuous synthetic surface for indoor games flooring cannot be classified as sports goods for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the distinction between sports goods and sports requisites, determining that the imported sports flooring material did not qualify as sports goods under the relevant notification. The decision upheld the denial of the benefit of the notification by the lower authorities, emphasizing the specific criteria for exemption under Central Excise notification.