Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 317 - CESTAT AHMEDABADBenefit of exemption from customs duty - Change of Notification in the bill of entry - Rejection of appellant’s request for claiming the alternate exemption Notification No. 94/2006 as against the Notification No. 158/95-CUS - HELD THAT:- The change of Notification in the bill of entry is permissible in terms of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in principle, the appellant is eligible for change of notification, for the reason in the present case that the appellant could not comply with the condition of re-export of goods within six months in terms of Notification 158/1995-CUS. The only criteria to be seen that whether at the time of import the alternate exemption notification was legally available to the appellant - In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute about eligibility of the Notification 94/2006-Cus in respect of the import made by the appellant as the goods were meant for re-export. Both the lower authorities have denied the change of the notification only on relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA VERSUS INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD. [2008 (7) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT]. Now the facts of the case in Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. is examined - From the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be seen that the claim of the appellant to the extent the benefit of notification 94/1996-CUS was declined for the reason that the bill of entries involved in that case were dated 12.08.1998 and 28.05.1998 whereas in the present cases the bills of entry are dated 29.01.2014. During the relevant period of filing the bill of entry in the present case, the Notification No. 94/1996-Cus was very much available to the appellant in terms of amendment Notification No. 135/99-Cus dated 27.12.1999 whereby an entry as Sr. No. 2A was inserted. Whereas in the case of Indian Rayon, the date of bill of entries being 12.08.1998 and 29.05.1998 i.e. prior to the amendment in the Notification dated 27.12.1999. The facts are totally different, hence the reliance on the judgment in the case of India Rayon Industries by both the lower authorities is misplaced. It is further found that the issue whether subsequent to import, appellant can claim alternate exemption notification is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Share Medical Care [2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that the beneficial notification can be claimed at a later stage also, if otherwise the same is eligible at the time of import of goods. Therefore, on both the count, the appellant are eligible for alternate exemption Notification No. 94/1996-Cus dated 16.12.1996. The impugned order is not legal and proper, hence the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|