2010 (3) TMI 614 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants condonation, remands appeal for reconsideration on exemption eligibility under Customs Notification.

The Tribunal granted condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, considering the appellant's pursuit of exemption claims and lack of negligence. The ... Broadcasting equipment - the appellant had imported professional broadcasting equipment for live telecast of Bombay Marathon in the year 2007 and 2008. The appellant claimed the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 1 of Notification 146/94, dated 13-7-94 which covers sports goods, sports equipment and sports requisites along with their spares, accessories and consumables. In the two impugned orders-in-appeal passed, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that appellants are not eligible for exemption since the goods imported were broadcasting equipment and are not covered under the category of sports goods and sports equipments. He has also taken a view that broadcasting equipments imported by the appellants cannot be considered as sports requisites since the same are not required for marathon race. Held that – moreover, letter issued by C.B.E & C. not available before adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) not taken note of said letter also. Since exemption to be considered taking description of goods, purpose of importation and eligibility for exemption. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for re-consideration. Issues:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 146/94 for imported broadcasting equipment.2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.3. Rejection of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) based on eligibility for exemption under Notification 146/94.4. Consideration of alternative plea for exemption under Notification 3/89-Cus.5. Remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration.Eligibility for Exemption under Notification 146/94:The appellant imported professional broadcasting equipment for live telecast of a marathon and claimed exemption under Notification 146/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that broadcasting equipment did not qualify as sports goods or equipment, thus denying the exemption. However, since the goods were re-exported, the benefit of another notification was extended. The Tribunal noted the pursuit of clarification from the government by the appellant regarding exemption eligibility and observed that while the appellant's fault was in not simultaneously filing the appeal, the pursuit of exemption claims showed diligence. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not due to negligence or lack of good faith on the part of the appellant, thus condoning the delay.Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 62 days and sought condonation based on the delay in receiving and acting on the appeal orders. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided, lack of detailed evidence, and relevant legal precedents emphasizing a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for delay. It noted the pursuit of exemption claims by the appellant and the absence of negligence or lack of good faith, ultimately granting condonation of the delay and proceeding with the appeal.Rejection of Appeals Based on Eligibility for Exemption:The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals on the grounds of ineligibility for exemption under Notification 146/94 without considering an alternative plea for exemption under Notification 3/89-Cus. The Tribunal found that the original adjudicating authority also did not address the alternative plea. Considering that exemption eligibility involves factors like the description of goods and purpose of importation, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, including consideration of the alternative plea for exemption under Notification 3/89-Cus.Remand of the Matter for Reconsideration:In light of the Commissioner (Appeals) not considering the alternative plea for exemption under Notification 3/89-Cus and the absence of certain relevant documents during the original adjudication, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter for a fresh decision. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the original adjudicating authority to reconsider the exemption issue, giving the appellant an opportunity to present their case.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai highlights the issues of exemption eligibility, delay condonation, rejection of appeals, consideration of alternative pleas, and the remand of the matter for a fresh decision.