2016 (11) TMI 219 - AT - Customs

Eligibilty of exemption - N/N. 16/2000 dt. 01.03.2000 - import of Pulse Sprint Flat Bed Treadmill, Pulse Ascent Elevated Treadmill, Pursuit Cycle and Pace Stepper - classification in dispute - whether the items fall under exemption exemption Entry No. 331 or these items are General Physical Exercise equipments used in gymnasium falling under CTH 95069.90? - duty paid under protest - whether refund claim justified? - Held that - exemption Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. exempts all goods of Chapter 94 which is required for games and sports, subject to compliance the condition No. 76 of the Notification - exemption is available on the condition that when apex body certifies that the requisites for games and sports are required to be used in a national or international championship or competition to be held in India or abroad. Certificate from Sports Authority of India - the Sports Authority of India has certified the specific imported goods that the said equipments are used for national or international tournaments. In our view, the department has no jurisdiction to question the certificate issued by Sports Authority of India. As per the Condition 76 only certification from the apex body is required, so long that condition is complied with exemption is available to the imported goods. Moreover for the purpose of national or international tournaments, the fitness of the player is the primary criteria for preparing to face the competition of national or international tournaments. Therefore it cannot be said that these fitness equipments are not used by the appellant for national or international tournaments. We are therefore of the considered view that on the basis of certificate dt. 14.6.2000 issued by Sport Authority of India addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bombay in respect of equipments imported by the appellant exemption notification is clearly admissible to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of exemption notifications for imported goods used in sports and championships.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the adjudicating authority.
3. Compliance with conditions for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of physical exercise equipment by All India Tennis Association, claiming exemption under Notification No. 146/94-Cus and Notification No. 16/2000. The department contended that the imported items did not qualify for the exemption as they were general physical exercise equipment used in a gymnasium. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, stating that the equipment was not used in national or international championships. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The issue was whether the equipment qualified for the exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus.

The Tribunal noted that the exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus applied to goods required for games and sports, subject to compliance with Condition No. 76. This condition required certification by the apex body that the requisites for games and sports were needed for a national or international championship. The appellant obtained a certificate from the Sports Authority of India, certifying that the imported equipment was used for national or international tournaments. The Tribunal held that the department could not question the certificate issued by the Sports Authority of India. As long as the condition of certification by the apex body was met, the exemption applied to the imported goods. The Tribunal emphasized that fitness equipment played a crucial role in preparing players for national or international tournaments, making them eligible for the exemption. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the interpretation of the exemption notifications and the compliance with conditions for claiming the exemption. By emphasizing the importance of the certificate from the apex body and the role of fitness equipment in sports preparation, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting relief in accordance with the law.