TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change of the notification only on relying upon the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA VERSUS INDIAN RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2008 (7) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT] . Now the facts of the case in Indian Rayon Industries Ltd. is examined - From the observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court, it can be seen that the claim of the appellant to the extent the benefit of notification 94/1996-CUS was declined for the reason that the bill of entries involved in that case were dated 12.08.1998 and 28.05.1998 whereas in the present cases the bills of entry are dated 29.01.2014. During the relevant period of filing the bill of entry in the present case, the Notification No. 94/1996-Cus was very much available to the appellant in terms of amendment Notification No. 135/99-Cus dated 27.12.1999 whereby an entry as Sr. No. 2A was inserted. Whereas in the case of Indian Rayon, the date of bill of entries being 12.08.1998 and 29.05.1998 i.e. prior to the amendment in the Notification dated 27.12.1999. The facts are totally different, hence the reliance on the judgment in the case of India Rayon Industries by both the lower authorities is misplaced. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal of the appellant only on the reliance of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs Calcutta Vs. Indian Rayon Industries Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 3 (SC), therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri M Balagopal, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the fact of the present case is different from the fact in the case of Indian Rayon Industries Ltd decided by the Hon ble Apex Court. Therefore, the sole reliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the judgment of Indian Rayon Industries Ltd (supra) is incorrect. Consequently, the order is also illegal and improper. 2.1 He submits that since, the appellant could not comply the condition of Notification No. 158/95-CUS they have claimed alternate exemption Notification by filing application under Section 149. He submits that at the time of filing bill of entry the alternate Notification No. 94/2006-Cus was very much available. Therefore, claiming a beneficial notification cannot be denied. He placed reliance on the following Judgments:- Birla NGK Insulators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CUS. Ahmedabad- 2009 (240) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962, which deals with re-importation of the goods, provides:- 20. Re-importation of goods. If goods were imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subjected to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject, on the importation thereof. 11. By Notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14th November, 1995, goods manufactured in India and reimported in India for repairs or for reconditioning are exempted from whole of the duty of customs leviable on them as well as additional duty subject to the condition, inter alia, that the goods are re-exported within six months of the date of re-importation or any extended period as may be allowed and a bond is executed at the time of importation to export within the said period and, in the event of failure to do so, pay an amount equal to the difference between the duty levied at the time of re-import and the duty leviable on suchgoods at the time of importation. The assessee executed a bond with the President of India, complying with the aforesaid condition of notification and undertook to pay, on demand in the event of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods exported (a). XXX (b). XXX (c). XXX (d). XXX (e). under duty exemption scheme (DEEC) or export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Amount of excise duty leviable at the time and place of importation of goods and subject to the following conditions Applicable for such Goods (I) DEEC book has not been finally closed and export in question is delogged from DEEC book. (II) (II)In case of EPCG scheme the period of full export performance has not expired and necessary endorsements regarding reimport have been made. (III) (III)The importer had intimated the details of the consignment re-imported to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in charge of the factory where the goods were 2. XXX XXX 3. XXX XXX refers to the goods exported under DEEC or Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme and not under DEPB Scheme. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export of goods in question (February 1998), provides as under: RULE 13- Export in bond of goods on which duty has not been paid (1)The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette (a)permit export of specified excisable goods in bond without payment of duty, in the like manner, as the goods regarding, which the rebate is granted under sub-rule (1) of rule 12 from a factory of manufacture or warehouse or any other premises as may be approved by the Commissioner of Central Excise; (b) specify materials, removal of which without payment of duty from the place of manufacture or storage for use in the manufacture in bond of export goods, may be permitted by the Commissioner of Central Excise; (c) allow removal of excisable material without payment of duty for the manufacture of export goods, as may be specified, to be exported in execution of one or more export orders; or for replenishment of duty paid materials used in the manufacture of such export goods already exported for the execution of such orders, or both; subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as regards the class or description of goods, cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.08.1998 and 28.05.1998 whereas in the present cases the bills of entry are dated 29.01.2014. During the relevant period of filing the bill of entry in the present case, the Notification No. 94/1996-Cus was very much available to the appellant in terms of amendment Notification No. 135/99-Cus dated 27.12.1999 whereby an entry as Sr. No. 2A was inserted. Whereas in the case of Indian Rayon, the date of bill of entries being 12.08.1998 and 29.05.1998 i.e. prior to the amendment in the Notification dated 27.12.1999. The facts are totally different, hence the reliance on the judgment in the case of India Rayon Industries (Supra) by both the lower authorities is misplaced. 4.3 We further find that the issue whether subsequent to import, appellant can claim alternate exemption notification is settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Share Medical Care (Supra), wherein it was held that the beneficial notification can be claimed at a later stage also, if otherwise the same is eligible at the time of import of goods. Therefore, on both the count, the appellant are eligible for alternate exemption Notification No. 94/1996-Cus dated 16.12.1996. 5. Accordingly, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
