TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 6 months - as the goods have already been exported, the question of demanding duty does not arise in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/890/2005 - C/20/2009(PB) - Dated:- 13-1-2009 - S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, P.K. Das, JJ. REPRESENTED BY :Shri S. Chand, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Atul Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004. (c) There was a request for permitting extension of time for exporting beyond the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of import which had been rejected by the Commissioner. (d) In relation to demand of duty on finalization, when the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals) he, vide his order dated 16-3-2005, held that there could not be any demand in respect of goods imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the re-export has taken place beyond a period of 6 months but within a period of 1 year from the date of clearance of goods. In view of this position, I have no hesitation in holding that the duty demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and therefore the same is set aside. When there is no duty to be payable, there cannot be any interest liability on the Appellants. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly considered the submissions from both sides. It is a peculiar case where the goods have been initially exported, re-imported and, subsequently re-exported. The fact that the re-imported goods have been re-exported is not being disputed. It is also not disputed that the Commissioner has power to extend the time limit for re-exportation beyond 6 months. In none of the orders the reasons which nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
