Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Rallis India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai

2016 (12) TMI 11 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Import of exported goods for re-processing and thereafter export - N/N. 158/95-Cus 14.11.1995 - re-assessment of consignment under N/N. 94/96-Cus. - whether the appellant, in case of non-fulfilment of the condition of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.1995, is entitle for the alternate Notification No. 94/96-Cus.? - Held that: - though the appellant re-imported exported goods claiming the Notification No. 158/95-Cus. and executed the Bond and bank guarantee but due to unavoidable reason c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

import and claimed later on, the legitimate exemption, which otherwise available under the statute, cannot be denied. This issue has been settled in the various judgments. In the case of SHARE MEDICAL CARE Versus UNION OF INDIA [2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that alternate Notification No. 65/88-Cus should be allowed, if the exemption Notification No.64/88-Cus claimed at the time of import is not admissible due to non-fulfilment of the post import c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal allowed. - C/647/04-Mum - A/93552/16/CB - Dated:- 1-7-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Ms. Lakshmi Menon, Advocate for Appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellant exported 500 Kgs of Cinnazine to M/s Pharmatech, Switzerland under Shipping Bill No.1082433 dated 16.12.2000 and the same consignment was re-imported for reprocessing and re-export under Notification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2003 rejected the request for reassessment of import under Notification No. 64/96-Cus on the ground that at the time of export the appellant have claimed the exemption Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Accordingly a Bond and Bank Guarantee were executed and accepted by the department. The appellant was supposed to re-export the goods within six months. However since the appellant could not re-export the goods within stipulated time period the duty forgone was demanded. Aggrieved by the said demand n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otification No. 158/95-Cus only on the ground that the appellant had executed the Bond and Bank Guarantee. She submits that it is the settled law that the alternate notification, even if claimed at later stage, the same should be allowed. In support of her this submission; she placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Share Medical Care Vs. UOI- [2007 (209) E.L.T. 321(SC)] 2. HGI Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE- [2007 (209) E.L.T. 148(Tri. Ahmd.)] 3. CC (Air) Vs. Srinar Electronics (P) Ltd.- [2010 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ulated time period of six months but even in the extendable time period. Therefore the appellant was duty bound to pay the duty foregone amount of duty for which Bond and Bank Guarantee was executed in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. He placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. R.R. Kobler Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. CC, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 2016 (333) E.L.T. 98 (Tri. - Del.) 2. Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai-I 2014 (310) E.L.T. 822 (Tri.-Mu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the alternate Notification No. 94/96-Cus. From the fact of the case, it reveals that though the appellant re-imported exported goods claiming the Notification No. 158/95-Cus. and executed the Bond and bank guarantee but due to unavoidable reason could not re-export the said goods. Therefore the appellant claimed the alternate exemption Notification No. 94/96-Cus. In our view, there is no reason to deny the alternate exemption notification. If the importer fails to comply with the condition of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version