TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of notification No. 104/94 on export goods is not correct in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months. Therefore where the goods are already re-exported benefits of said Notification should be granted. However, the facts of export of the very same goods, which were imported by the appellant have to be established and identity of the imported and re-exported goods is required to be examined by the lower authorities, therefore matter needs to be reconsidered, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the assessing authority for examining the appellant s claim in this regards. The assessments are provisional and the same have to be finalized in accordance with the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing penalties on the appellant. 1.2 The facts of the case are that M/s Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture and supply of components of Wind Operated Energy Generator (WOEG). The intelligence was gathered by the officers of SIIB, Customs House, Kandla that M/s Vestas while importing the goods had deliberately not declared the packing materials for components/ parts of wind mill/ SOC containers with a view to evade customs duty. It was also gathered that the specialized packing materials were not in the nature of optional equipment but it was a part of the goods being imported and that the same had commercial value. 1.3 It was found that during the period from Jan. 2011 to Feb. 2012, packing materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The Appellant applied for the extension for a period of 6 months, but could not produce the permission granted to them. Thus, the importer neither re-exported the said packing materials within the prescribed time limit or within the extended period nor applied for further extension. Thus, it appears that the benefit of Notification No. 104/94-Cus. dated 16.03.1994 on all the packing materials valued at Rs. 23,71,41,010 involving duty amount of Rs. 5,82,34,253/- is required to be denied them firstly in the aspect of eligibility of the Notification benefit claimed and secondly for violating the conditions of Notification No. 104/94 Cus. After completing the investigation a show cause notice dated 24.01.2014 was issued to the Appellant pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shipping Bills, and the bond was also discharged. 2.2 He contended that the containers/ frames imported by Appellant availing benefits of Notification No. 104/94- Cus have already been reexported. Wherever the containers could not be re-exported, duty has been paid on the same. The Ld. Adjudicating authority ignored the documents/ details submitted in this regards. 2.3 He further submits that it is settled law that once the goods have been permitted to be re-exported, the delay in exporting the same, if any, and the non- seeking of extension of time to re-export will not hamper the benefit otherwise rightly available. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Excise C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll take place after the order of the SVB but with regard to benefit of Notification No. 104/94-Cus, he has proceeded to finalise the same. It is also settled law that provisional assessments must not be finalized on piecemeal basis and all aspects have to be finalized at one go. He placed reliance of the following Judgements: ITC Vs. CCE, Patna 1998 (102) ELT 660 (Tribunal) CCEx., Madras Vs. Enfield India Ltd. 1999 (114) ELT 162 (Tribunal) Bongaigaon Refinery Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta 2001 (130) ELT 372 (Tri. Kolkata) 2.6 Accordingly he prayed that the matter should be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to finalise the assessment in accordance with the law. 3. On other hand Shri Dinesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months. Therefore where the goods are already re-exported benefits of said Notification should be granted. However, the facts of export of the very same goods, which were imported by the appellant have to be established and identity of the imported and re-exported goods is required to be examined by the lower authorities, therefore matter needs to be reconsidered. we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the assessing authority for examining the appellant s claim in this regards. 4.1 We also find that in the present matter Ld. Commissioner also accepted the facts that most of these Bills of Entry have been assessed provisionally. We prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
