TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the original authority on the ground that the machine was exported after de-bonding and the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable for sanctioning the said claim. Held that:- It is observed that the goods were initially imported without payment of duty. The goods were taken to a 100% EOU which is the Customs bonded area under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods continued to be in the Customs bonded area. They filed the ex-bond Bill of Entry and paid the duty. Even though they paid the duty the goods were not physically removed from the bonded area. When the goods were exported the appellants did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962 but filed ARE1. ARE1 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the appellant was required to follow Section 69 procedure, I allow the appeal. The appellant would be entitled for the said refund claim subject to other requirements being satisfied. However, as undertaken by the appellant, no interest would be payable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/615/2005 - Final order no. A/917/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 17-4-2014 - Mr. P. K. Jain,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Mayur Shroff, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M.S. Reddy, Deputy Commissioner (AR)) ORDER Per: P.K. Jain 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU. They had imported certain capital goods which were cleared duty free. The capital goods were used in the 100% EOU. Sometime in J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ought to have exported the goods under the claim of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the refund claim filed by them was correctly rejected by the lower authority. The appellants are in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant after passing of the order of the original authority also approached the Custom House to grant drawback in terms of Section 74. The Custom House took the view that the goods are exported on free shipping bills and conversion was not allowed by the Commissioner and therefore they do not satisfy the condition of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. They also advised the appellant to approach the excise authorities for refund on merits. 3. The learned advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. It is observed that the goods were initially imported without payment of duty. The goods were taken to a 100% EOU which is the Customs bonded area under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods continued to be in the Customs bonded area. They filed the ex-bond Bill of Entry and paid the duty. Even though they paid the duty the goods were not physically removed from the bonded area. When the goods were exported the appellants did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962 but filed ARE1. ARE1 procedure is for the excisable goods domestically produced and is with reference to the excise duty and not with reference to Customs duty. Unfortunat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
