By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 22, 2017: THE appellant is running Educational Institutions and imported "Artificial Grass Turf" for laying football ground.

It is the case of appellant that ‘Artificial Grass Turf' imported by them is consisting of Machine tuft/coated polyethylene twisted grass for soccer field and recycled "cryogenic Rubber Fieldturf Granules" to be used as infill material for installation of artificial grass; both the consignments were imported under single consignment and common IGM was filed but appellants filed two Bills of Entry for the same goods. They claimed benefit of notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 393) for "Cryogenic Rubber Fieldturf Granules" and the assessing officer extended the benefit of the Notification on the grass turf. Appellant filed Bill of Entry for recycled Cryogenic Rubber Granules under Chapter Heading 40040000 as "Infill Granules" and the said Bill of Entry was assessed and clearance was allowed.

The adjudicating authority rejected the benefit of Sl. 393 of Notification 21/2002-Cus as amended by 11/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005 on the ground that the said cryogenic rubber granules do not fall under Tariff heading 4004 or CTH 95.

The appellant is before the CESTAT as their appeal against the o-in-o did not meet with any success.

The appellant justified the classification adopted by them and their claim of the exemption notification 21/2002-Cus. It is also submitted that benefit of Notification 146/94-Cus should have been extended as the said benefit is extended to ‘sport requisites' and laying of synthetic track ‘Artificial Grass Turf' are essential for playing games and are therefore captured by the term ‘sports requisites' and CBEC Circular No. 70/2002-Cus will be applicable in this case.

The Bench observed -

"5. …, we find that both the lower authorities have had no opportunity to consider the benefit of Notification 146/94-Cus., as the said notification specifically talks about exemption to sports goods, sports equipment and sports requisites imported into India by a National Sports Federation and by a sports person of outstanding eminence for training purposes. Both the lower authorities have recorded that the appellant had produced a certificate issued by the General Secretary, All India Football Federation. If that be so, the Board's Circulars No. 21/2012-Cus dated 01.08.2012 and 70/2002-Cus dated 25.10.2002 may have to be applied by the lower authorities. In the entire findings we note that the said Circulars have not been considered in proper perspective. In view of the foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice."

The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

(See 2017-TIOL-547-CESTAT-MUM)