2000 (10) TMI 780 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit under Customs Notification No. 49/2000 for imported plastic foil.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Denial of benefit under Customs Notification No. 49/2000.
- The appellant, a company engaged in cut roses production, imported plastic foil for a green house and sought clearance under the concessional rate of duty. The lower authority denied the benefit, stating that the plastic foil did not qualify as capital goods or components of capital goods under the Notification.

2. Issue: Interpretation of Customs Notification No. 49/2000.
- The appellant argued that the plastic foil should be considered a component of capital goods required for assembly or manufacture of capital goods, specifically for covering the green house roof. They contended that the green house itself is an equipment for floriculture production, making the plastic foil essential for the green house assembly.

3. Issue: Definition of capital goods and components.
- The Circular from the Department of Revenue clarified that a green house can be considered an equipment, falling under the definition of capital goods. Therefore, the plastic foil imported for the green house construction should be deemed a component of the capital goods, as per the Notification.

4. Issue: Compliance with Notification requirements.
- The lower authority's insistence on importing all components of capital goods for Notification benefits was deemed unfounded. The judgment highlighted that the plastic foil necessary for the green house construction should be considered a component of the capital goods, contrary to the lower authority's interpretation.

5. Judgment:
- After careful consideration, the Commissioner allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-original. The judgment emphasized that the plastic foil imported for the green house, being essential for the capital equipment assembly, should be considered a component of the capital goods under Customs Notification No. 49/2000. The Commissioner found the lower authority's decision lacking basis and unsupported by relevant regulations or clarifications, thus ruling in favor of the appellant.