CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I Customs Appeal No. 199 of 2011 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 01/APSS/CCDRI/NCH/2011 dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.), New Customs House, New Delhi.)

Dr. Mohandhas .…Appellant C/O Sushrushah Hospitals Tuticorin - 8 Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.) .…Respondent New Custom House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037 APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant Shri N.M. Goyal, Authorised Representative of the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: January 19, 2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50160/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA This appeal has been filed to assail that portion of the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi¹ that confirms the duty upon the appellant, confiscates the imported cars and imposes redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962²

2. It transpires that the appellant is a purchaser of the car imported by Nehru Place Hotel Pvt Ltd³ under the Export Promotion Capital Goods⁴ licenses issued to the said Hotel. The Hotel was providing hospitalities services to various guests, including international guests

1 the Commissioner

2 the Customs Act

3 the Hotel

4 EPCG and earned foreign exchange. Chapter 6 of the Export/Import Policy 1997-2002 provided for exemption from customs duty to capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods⁵ Scheme. It also needs to be noted that Notification No. 29/1997 dated 01.04.19976 extended complete exemption from basic custom duty as well as additional duty to goods required for rendering services by hotel industry subject to certain conditions. The export obligation was satisfied by the Hotel and the DGFT issued the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. The Customs Authorities also cancelled the bond. Thereafter, the DRI investigated into the matter and issued a show cause notice dated 12.05.2010. The appellant submitted a reply and denied the allegations made in the show cause notice.

3. The Commissioner (Adjudication), however, by the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty and imposed redemption fine upon the appellant for the reason that the Hotel had not discharged the export obligation and, therefore, was not entitled to claim the benefit of Exemption Notification.

4. Case has been called out but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

5. Shri N.M. Goyal, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has made submissions on behalf of the department.

6. The submission that has been advanced by Mr. N.M. Goyal, learned authorized representative appearing for the department is that there is no error in the impugned order that may call for any interference in the appeal. Learned authorized representative also

5 EPCG

6 Notification dated 01.04.1997

placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Samudra Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd vs. CC (Export) Mumbai⁷

7. The appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the BMW car from the Nehru Place Hotels Pvt Ltd.

8. The appeal has been perused and the submissions advanced by the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered.

9. A perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in Interglobe Enterprises Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi clearly indicates that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the said decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Samudra Holiday Resorts that has been relied upon by the learned authorized representative appearing for the department.

10. The Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the decision examined whether the export obligation were fulfilled only by the usage of the imported cars and after referring to the communication dated 29.11.2005 issued by the DGFT held as follows:

“13. This clearly establishes t