1998 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Customs

Amusement park equipment such as merry-go-round - Exemption under Notification No. 133/91-Cus.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification 133/91-Cus., dated 17th September, 1991 regarding exemption of duty on imported amusement park equipment.
- Determination of possession and control of goods imported by the appellant.
- Analysis of whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions of the Notification.
- Consideration of legal ownership and possession of the goods in question.
- Assessment of whether the appellant parted with the goods as per the Notification requirements.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai centered on the entitlement of imported amusement park equipment to the benefit of Notification 133/91-Cus., which exempted certain equipment from duty subject to specific conditions.
2. The Notification exempted specific amusement equipment from duty, subject to conditions including the importer's undertaking to retain possession and control of the goods for a specified period.
3. The Collector found that the goods were in possession of a company running the amusement park, not the appellant, leading to a denial of the exemption benefit due to non-compliance with the possession condition.
4. The appellant argued that despite the goods being with another company, it maintained control and ownership due to legal restrictions on its operations in India, which necessitated an agreement with the company running the amusement park.
5. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant had indeed parted with possession as per the Notification requirements, emphasizing the strict interpretation of the exemption conditions.
6. The Tribunal analyzed possession jurisprudence and legal principles to determine that the appellant retained significant control and ownership over the goods, despite physical possession by another entity.
7. It was established that the appellant had not imported the goods for profit-making purposes, and its involvement with the company running the amusement park did not constitute a breach of the possession condition.
8. Considering the legal restrictions on the appellant's operations in India and the nature of the agreement with the company, the Tribunal concluded that the conditions of the Notification had been met, entitling the goods to the exemption benefit.
9. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order denying the benefit of the Notification, imposing penalties, and ordering confiscation of the goods was set aside.