of service provider other than hotel or stand alone restaurant or golf resort having catering facility, capital goods including spares, office equipment, professional equipment, office furniture and consumables, related to its service sector business, but excluding the items not permitted to be imported in terms of Appendix 37B of the Hand Book of Procedure, volume I. I further notice that DRI has denied the exemption benefits to the Noticees, by claiming it as a Vehicle. The Notices have strongly contested on this issue by claiming that the Helicopter is Capital goods and is mostly procured under EPCG licence in the service industry. To claim exemption under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, issuance of related notifications act into force and the express wordings of the Notification, prima facie, act as an important criterion in deciding the eligibility. I notice that the express wordings of the Notification exempts Capital goods but on a specific eligibility/limitation that the goods should be related to their service sector business. It has already come on record that the disputed goods i.e. Helicopter was imported for private use by NECL in terms of DCA's letter dated 06.08.2010 read with DGFT's letter 03.09.2010. Once, the records reveal that the purpose of import of the impugned goods are for personal use, as per the Noticees' declaration and the passengers' manifest which shows that the Helicopter ferried family members of the personnels, the same cannot be interpreted as an item which acts as a determining agent in the business area of the Noticee and hence cannot be related to capital goods for its service sector business, by any stretch of imagination. Similarly, the impugned item cannot also be termed as professional equipment too, for the reason that in normal parlance, a professional equipment is the instrument or tool or goods, which are utilized in the normal course of business activity of any organization. Undoubtedly, the functioning of the Noticee is not for ferrying personnels but rather are reportedly or evidently engaged in various infrastructural portfolios like Roads, Bridges, Marine development and Turnkey projects. Accordingly, it is my considered opinion, that once, it has come on record that the impugned goods are imported for personal purpose and also there are evidences which reveal that the same is utilized for personal use, the claim of the Noticees that they have rightly availed the exemption benefits by declaring it as Capital goods is flawed untenable and bad in law.
