2015 (11) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification 28/97 dt. 1.4.97 under EPCG scheme - appellant submits that they have fulfilled the export obligation - Held that - Tribunal in their order dt. 22.1.2004 had categorically taken into consideration the Board s circular No.62/2002 dt. 26.9.2002 wherein the Tribunal directed the lower authority to consider the Board s circular whereas we find that both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have interpreted the Board circular only refers to Notfn 29/97 - Board has categorically clarified that industries are eligible to import consumer items including Chandeliers under EPCG licence. There is no where any mention of any notification as held by both the lower authorities. Further, we find that this issue stands settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Appu Hotel Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 1163 - SUPREME COURT) where this Tribunal s order in the case of Appu Hotel Ltd. Vs CC Chennai (2008 (1) TMI 201 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) was upheld. - following the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement, we hold that the ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the present case as in the present case appellants have imported architectural light fittings claimed under EPCG licence No04500471/1/13/10/1/01 dt. 16.2.1998 covered under Notfn 28/97 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Board's circular regarding EPCG benefit under Notification 28/97
- Eligibility of imported items as capital goods under EPCG scheme
- Previous Tribunal's order and Supreme Court's decision applicability

Interpretation of Board's Circular:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, in a case involving the appellant, a hotel industry, seeking benefits under Notification 28/97 of the EPCG scheme. The Tribunal, in a previous order, directed the lower authority to consider the Board's circular No.62/2002, which clarified that service providers in the hotel sector could import consumer items like chandeliers under EPCG benefit. However, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority interpreted the circular to refer only to Notification 29/97, not 28/97. The Tribunal, after analyzing the circular, emphasized that the Board's clarification allowed industries to import consumer items, including chandeliers, under EPCG licenses, irrespective of specific notifications. This issue had been settled by the Supreme Court in a previous case, upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.

Eligibility of Imported Items as Capital Goods:
The appellant had imported architectural light fittings under an EPCG license covered by Notification 28/97. The appellant argued that the imported items qualified as capital goods required for rendering services in the hotel industry, as per the EPCG scheme. Citing previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, the appellant demonstrated that chandeliers and light fittings were essential for hotel industry services and were covered under the EPCG scheme. The Tribunal concurred with this interpretation, setting aside the lower authorities' denial of benefits and confirming the eligibility of the imported items as capital goods under the EPCG scheme.

Applicability of Previous Tribunal's Order and Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal's decision in the present case aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling in a previous matter involving a similar issue. The Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that chandeliers and light fittings were necessary for hotel industry services and thus qualified for benefits under the EPCG scheme. By following the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant, who had fulfilled export obligations and paid the differential duty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of interpretation of the Board's circular, eligibility of imported items as capital goods, and the applicability of previous decisions, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellant based on legal precedents and the EPCG scheme's provisions.