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

M/s Roop Automotives Limited Versus CC, ICD (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi

2018 (1) TMI 571 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Benefit of Notification No. 158/95 - exported goods, found defective, imported for repair and subsequently re-exported - Held that: - it is admitted that the goods have been re-exported within one year of re-import into India. The relevant date under N/N. 158/95 has been clarified by the Board vide Circular dated 03.06.97. Accordingly, considering the date of actual clearance of goods on assessment of bill of entry of all the re-exports in the present case happened within one year. - Regardi .....

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 - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.51597 of 2017 - C/A/58388/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. S. C. Jain, Advocate for the appellant Sh. P. Juneja, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandra The appeal is against order dated 07.08.2017 of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The appellant exported certain automobiles components in the year 2014. These .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2016. These goods were re-exported by filing shipping bills by the appellant. The dispute relates to three shipping bills which were filed in March, 2016. The Revenue held a view that these re-exports have not happened within the stipulated time of six months from the date of re-import of the dutiable goods and accordingly the imported goods which were covered by these shipping bills were held liable for duty amounting to ₹ 17,19,340/- by denying the exemption under Notification No.158/95 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts even beyond one year. This is factually incorrect without considering the out of charge was dated 01.04.2015. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the goods have been exported out of India and they were not consumed into India and as such no customs duty can be charged on these goods. Further, the exports happened within one year of the import and the only procedural lacunae on the part of the appellant is that they did not file extension of time for re-export after the expiry of date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er. In the present case, the appellant chose not to seek extension of time limit and as such cannot claim the exemption automatically. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal record. 5. Regarding the facts of the case, it is admitted that the goods have been re-exported within one year of re-import into India. The relevant date under Notification No.158/95 has been clarified by the Board vide Circular dated 03.06.97. Accordingly, considering the date of actual clearance of goods on as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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