Tamilnadu Cricket Association Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption from customs duty admissible on import of flood lights which is used for all matches conducted in the stadium whether it is world cup international match or one day international match.
Facts- The appellant M/s.Tamilnadu Cricket Association, affiliated to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), imported Ground Light Equipments, Flood Light Luminaries Lamps and accessories (for installation of Flood Lighting Systems in the Stadium) etc. under 5 Bills of Entry covering the total value of Rs.2,85,19,880/- and cleared them at Nil rate of Customs duty as per Adhoc Exemption Order No.338/95 dt. 21.12.1995 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
The original authority held that the appellant has violated condition No. (ii) of the Adhoc Exemption Order and ordered for confiscation of the goods giving an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.28 lakhs. The duty demand proposed in the SCN was confirmed and penalty of Rs.22 lakhs was imposed under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
Conclusion- Held that when the Government has granted exemption from Customs duty, the department has sought to deny the exemption by alleging that the flood lights have been used for cricket matches other than the world cup. It is thus assumed by the department that the conduct of world cup international matches is for non-commercial purpose and that the conduct of one day international matches is for commercial purpose. We do not understand what is the criteria to hold that the world cup international match is for non-commercial purpose and that the conduct of one day international matches is for a commercial purpose. The adhoc exemption order does not make any such distinction. The entire SCN has been issued on assumptions and presumptions. We do not find any factual or legal basis to hold that there is a violation of condition (ii) as alleged by the department. The issue on merits is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.
