Judgment:
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the learned lower appellate authority under which the respondents have given the benefit of concessional assessment as 50% of the CIF value of the goods. The learned Collector (Appeals) has allowed the benefit under Notification No. 160/92.
2. The learned SDR has pleaded that the goods were originally imported in terms of Notification No. 157/90, dated 28-3-1990. Under this notification the goods were allowed import for exhibition purposes and the federation which was allowed importation was required to pay duty as payable on the date of clearances of the goods in case the goods were not re-exported. He has pleaded since the goods in the present case are not re-exported the duty applicable for import should have been asked to be paid. In this connection we drew the attention of the learned SDR to the proviso to condition 5 of the Notification which proviso is reproduced below for convenience of reference: "Provided that the Federation shall not be liable to pay the customs duty in cases where the said goods are sold in exhibition or fairs or otherwise disposed of in India on payment of customs duty with the prior approval of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue." 2. He concedes that the clearances of the goods in terms of this proviso has been made in as much as the appellants were issued a licence by EPCG scheme for importation of the same. He has pleaded that since the relevant time is the date of clearance of the goods which occured in 1994 the benefit of notification issued in 1995 should not be allowed.
3. The learned Advocate for the respondents has pleaded that EPCG licence issued carries a specific endorsement that the licence is made valid for clearances of the machines in question which were brought into India for display in an exhibition in December, 1994 under 80(A) of the scheme. He has pleaded that the respondents have been restored to the position for the purpose of importation of the goods to the date on which the goods were originally imported and therefore the benefit of Notification 160/92 which was available on that date would be applicable to the respondents.
4. The learned SDR at this stage referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Skanta Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1984 (ECR) 1074 which has been affirmed by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ajanta Offset Packaging Ltd. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 771. The facts of this case he pleaded are that the machinery had been imported for exhibition and subsequently the machinery were allowed for home consumption and in the meantime after the importation of the same the exemption notification came to be issued. The Tribunal has in that case held that the benefit of exemption notification issued subsequent to the date of importation will not be applicable.
5. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that in the present case the respondents have been issued a licence which has been endorsed for its validity for importation of the machines in question which was imported in 1994. The importation therefore can be taken to be covered by this licence which has been issued under EPCG scheme. The appe lants therefor would be eligible to the benefits of concessional assessment as applicable on the date of importation of the machinery. On that date Notification 160/92 extended the benefit for assessement at the rate of 15%. This is what the learned lower authority. In that view of the matter we hold that the learned lower authority has rightly interpreted the scope of licence issued and the rate is applicable in respect of the goods. The ratio of the decisions cited are not applicable to the facts of the case. We therefore find no force in the plea of the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.