By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 12, 2018 : AGAINST the order passed by the lower appellate authority, the importer is before the CESTAT.

While it is the claim of the appellant that the imported goods were‘old and used reconditioned Brunswick bowling equipment' considered to be ‘equipment' covered by definition of capital goods and there shall not be levy of duty even though that is second hand in terms of para 2.17 read with para 9.12 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, Revenue denies the same saying that the goods in question not being “equipment” shall not fall in the category of capital goods and, therefore, an import licence is required.

The appellant further submitted that the equipment imported as above was installed in a mall to render service and such services are recognised by the GST law for taxability .

To this submission, the Bench retorted - “We are not concerned about the taxability under GST law not being an Authority under that law.”

As for the matter involved, the CESTAT observed -

“2. The definition of capital goods given by para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, throws light that “equipment” itself is an independent goods and characterised to be capital goods. Therefore, an equipment does not go out of the fold of definition of capital goods. The second hand capital goods in question is also permitted to be imported. The imported goods is an equipment for the reason that it is a system itself and independent by its character and nature having its independent existence to serve its purpose. Therefore such inbuilt character recognises the goods as equipment which cannot be ruled out. That falls in the fold of capital goods as envisaged by the Policy and import thereof does not call for licence.”

The plea made by the Revenue that the equipment was not installed for rendering service was dismissed as being without any evidence.

In fine, the appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-179-CESTAT-MUM)