2019 (1) TMI 2020 - AT - Customs

Exemption from payment of SAD on All pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which it is required - Revenue was of the view that Exercise Equipments are not displayed in sales outlets or sold from the sales outlets in a pre-packaged condition - applicability of provision of Chapter II of Standards of Weight and Measure (pre-packaged commodity) Rules, 1977 - HELD THAT - The appellant had not placed any material to substantiate that the imported goods were intended for retail sale. The Tribunal in the case of POOJA HARDWARE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA 2014 (12) TMI 23 - CESTAT MUMBAI has denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2010, Cus., (supra). In that case, the aluminum profiles, hardware for furniture fittings though imported in pre-packed form, but since the same were not meant for retail sale under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2019 and rules framed there under, the exemption benefit was denied - In the present case, it is already observed that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the imported goods are intended for retail sale and thus, the benefit of exemption is not available. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010 for exemption of SAD on imported goods intended for retail sale.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant importing "Exercise Equipments" and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010 for exemption of SAD on goods intended for retail sale. The revenue contended that the goods were not displayed or sold in a pre-packaged condition from sales outlets. The appellant paid duty under protest, and the adjudicating authority assessed the goods without extending the benefit of the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the exemption notification, the Tribunal found that the goods should be "pre-packaged" and "intended for retail sale" to qualify for the exemption. The appellant argued they met the pre-packaged goods condition, but lower authorities determined the goods were not intended for retail sale. As the goods were not typically sold at retail outlets, they did not fall under the provisions of the Standards of Weight and Measure Rules for pre-packaged commodities. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the goods' intended retail sale.

Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted that even if goods were imported in a pre-packed form, if they were not meant for retail sale under relevant legal provisions, exemption benefits could be denied. Since the appellant did not demonstrate that the imported goods were intended for retail sale, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of exemption was not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision, as the appellant failed to establish that the imported goods were intended for retail sale, as required by the exemption notification. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the lower authorities' rulings.