TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had intended to re-export the goods after repair of the shoes. However, they could not fulfil this requirement and thereafter sold the goods locally. They then requested the department to extend to them the benefit of Notification No.94/96. The department has not considered the same observing that the appellant has availed drawback and claimed benefit of Notification No.158/95 at the time of import of the goods. On similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of Olam Agro India Ltd.[ 2024 (2) TMI 317 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] had considered the very same issue and held that the appellant would be eligible for alternate beneficial notification. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care [ 2007 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, had failed to comply with the condition of notification and therefore not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.158/95. The request for benefit of Notification No.94/96 was not considered at all. Against this, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal. 2. The Ld. Consultant Shri A.R. Raghunathan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) failed to extend the benefit of Notification No.94/96 though the same was available to the appellant at the time of import itself. They had opted for the Customs Notification No.158/95 which was beneficial to them as the duty w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the same observing that the appellant has availed drawback and claimed benefit of Notification No.158/95 at the time of import of the goods. On similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of Olam Agro India Ltd. (supra) had considered the very same issue and held that the appellant would be eligible for alternate beneficial notification. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care (supra) held that assessee cannot be denied the benefit of alternate notification when it is eligible at the time of import of the goods. Following the cited decisions (supra), we are of the view that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.94/96. However, it is made clear that the appellant has to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
