Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that classification of lightings, fixtures and fittings, etc. as ‘capital goods’ by licencing authority [DGFT] cannot be otherwise for Customs Department. Thus, customs department cannot take stand at variance with DGFT.
Facts- The appellant is a hotel and had imported light and light fittings on 25.05.1999, vide Bill of Entry No.15041. It had applied for, and had been issued a license under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, claiming benefit of reduced rate of import duty in terms of Notification No.28/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997.
At the time of import, the Appellant was denied the benefit of concessional duty, the authorities opining, contrary to the terms of the licence, that the goods imported did not constitute capital goods. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to remit the duty in full, though under protest. An order-in-original came to be passed on 08.07.1999, wherein the authority took the view that notwithstanding the classification of the goods under the EPCG license, the appellant was not entitled to the concessional rate, referring, inter alia, to Notification Nos.122/93, 28/97 & 29/97.
Notably, while the CESTAT had allowed the appeal, the specific ground relating to interest from date of remittance on compensatory basis had not been dealt with. The first appellate authority had himself granted interest as per Section 27A of the Act and when the assessee moved a miscellaneous petition before the CESTAT seeking adjudication of the ground relating to compensatory interest, the Tribunal rejected the same on 17.01.2019.
