9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of Entry No. 2558511 dated 25.01.2004 for clearance of goods, which were originally exported vide various shipping bills dated 29.01.2018 onwards. At the time of import the appellant availed the benefit of above Notification. However, during Audit it is observed that the appellant had apparently claimed ineligible exemption, hence proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, Adjudication Authority vide imported order held that the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 is not available and confirmed the differential duty along with applicable interest. However, benefit were extended to goods which are covered under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 for few of the items. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch re-imported goods mentioned at (i) and (ii) above are re-exported within one year of the date of re- importation." 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of clause (i) of S.No. 14 all goods other than those specified in Annexure-VII of the Notification are eligible for re-import by availing the exemption, it is not a disputed fact that the impugned goods are other than those specificied in Annexure-VII. Therefore Clause (i) of S.No. 14 would squarely apply for the goods re-imported by the appellant. 5. The Learned Counsel further submitted that all goods except for the goods at Sl. No. 9,10 & 17 were re-exported within 1(one) year from the date of re-import. Regarding 3(three) items which were not re-exported within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime limit. The contention of the Revenue is that when the Notification prescribes a time limit, that should be adhered to. Otherwise the re-imported goods should discharge the duty burden. The view taken by the Department is that statutory obligation under Notification, will have an overriding effect. In our view the stand taken by the Revenue in this case defeats the purpose of the Board's Circular No. 60/99-Cus., which has adopted a sympathetic approach to the difficulty being faced by the E.O.U. with regard to the goods exported or imported and found unfit for use. In the face of the Circular, the Revenue authorities should not take a rigid stand and demand duty on the goods being imported in view of the delay in re-import beyond one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Circular it is clarified that such re-import shall not necessary be for the purpose of re-export. Therefore, appellant being an 100% EOU are also very much eligible for the duty free import of goods under S.No. 15 of Notification Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003. 10. Learned Counsel further submitted that as per Board Circular No. 122/1995 dated 28.11.1995, in matters involving interpretation of statutory provisions or policy provisions or the scope of Notification, Show Cause Notice can be issued only after referring the matter to CBEC. Further, as per Board Circular No. 21/95 dated 10.03.95, the Department can issue Show Cause Notice to 100%EOU only in the cases of clandestine removal / non-accountal / disappearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue reiterated the submissions and also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Air Liquide North India (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2011 (8) TMI 93 - SC, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad reported in 2020 (372) ELT 622 (Tri.-Hyd.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. United Spirits Ltd. reported in 2017 (345) ELT 417 (SC) and also submitted that the appellant had re-imported the export products rejected / returned by their foreign buyer citing quality issues for the purpose of 'reprocessing' and re-export in terms of Sl. No. 14 of Annexure-I to the Notification No.52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003. The appellant contended that the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported in 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (SC) and submitted that the conditions of exemption notification have to be strictly followed. Learned AR also relied on the decisions in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. United Spirits Ltd., 2017 (345) ELT 417 (SC), Air Liquide North India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2011 (8) TMI 93-SC, Lahari Impex Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Seaport-import), Chennai - 2020 (374) ELT 716 (Mad.). 17. We find that on a plain reading of the S. No. 14 of the Notification No.52/2003-Cus dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
