TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. - Appeal Nos. C/395, 396 & 397/2009 - Order No. FO/76356-358/2018 - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Hon ble Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri C.L.Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri N. K. Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Guha, AC(AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants exported 19855 Kgs. of Hot Dip Galvanized Steel Bars and Rods to their buyer at USA. The said goods were imported back for undertaking some process reconditioning vide Bill of Entry No.324686 dated 05.02.2007 without payment of duty, availing the benefit of Exemption Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. The appellant executed Bond and Bank Guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the extension of substantial benefit to the appellant more particularly when the export was made. He further submits that the re-imported goods were defective and the process for curing the defects took some time and he also mentioned that for some period, the exports were also banned by the US authorities and accordingly the delay in re-export of the goods was beyond the control of the appellants. Several factors contributed to the delay in exporting the goods. He prayed that substantial benefit of the notification should not be denied to the appellant. Ld. Advocate strongly contended that at the time of the export, the customs official verified the facts, condoned the delay and allowed the exports. Ld. Advocate submitted a compilation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (SC), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observations was made by the Apex Court in the Formika India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.LT. 511 (SC), in observing that once a view is taken that the party would have been entitled to the benefit of the Notification had they met with the requirement of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when they could have done so had elapsed. While drawing a distinction between a procedural condition of a technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning authority. 6. On going through the above decision we find that the mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. Some conditions may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some other may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve. It is not in dispute that the goods were finally exported. The delay in re-export of the goods within the stipulated time limit was due to unavoidable circumstances as explained by the ld. Advocate. 7. In view of the above discussions the impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
