9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that as per the notification the re-imported goods after repair should have been re-exported within a stipulated period of six month. However the appellant has neither exported the goods within the stipulated period nor sought extension of time for re-import. Therefore there is a violation of the condition provided under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected, therefore the appellant is before us. 2. Shri V.M. Doiphode, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have filed the shipping bill for export on 8.3.2004 i.e. within one year from the date of re-import which was made on 11.3.2003. The appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed the alternative exemption notification No. 94/96-Cus dt. 16.12.1996. He submits that this notification was clearly admissible to the appellant whereunder no time limit is prescribed. Therefore the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notification No. 94/96-Cus. is admissible. 3. On the other hand, Shri Chatru Singh Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai-I 2014 (310) E.L.T. 822 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) R.R. Kobler Overseas P. Ltds. Vs. C.C., ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 2016 (333) ELT 98 (Tri.-Del. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the bond. Therefore it cannot be said that the appellant has violated the condition prescribed under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. As regard the judgments cited by the Ld. A.R. though in the said judgments it is held that if the goods were not re-exported within the stipulated period, exemption is not available. However in the present case, since the bond executed for the purpose of Notification No. 158/95 has been extended it is as good as the period for re-export of the goods also stand extended. In this peculiar fact of the case, the ratio of the judgments cited by Ld. A.R. are not applicable. We also find that the Notification No. 94/96-Cus. is prima facie available for re-import of the goods however since we have taken a view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
