9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cooked P & D tail off shrimps vide Shipping Bill No. 1268984 dated 06.10.2004 to USA. The consignment was returned by the overseas entity to the appellant due to some problems with the said consignment for reprocessing and re-export. Initially, the appellant had availed DEPB benefit of Rs.79,285/- and the DEPB Licence was surrendered on reimport of the said consignment through their letter dated 14.06.2005. The consignment was imported against Bill of Entry No. 160863 dated 16.06.2005 and cleared by the appellant on execution of bond with Bank Guarantee pending production of Re-export Certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. The appellant could not re-export the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Department nor any direction from the higher forum so issued. Therefore, the order denying the benefit of the Notification No.94/96-Cus by the adjudicating authority in the de novo order and also by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) holding that re-assessment cannot be permitted, is bad in law and cannot be sustained. 3.2. Further, he has submitted that on merit, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. as an alternative claim which ought to have been allowed in view of the judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Olam Agro India Ltd. Vs. CC, Ahmedabad [Final Order No.10328/2024 dated 05.02.2024] and the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of SSK Export Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /95-Cus. dated 14.11.1995; hence a show-cause notice was issued to them for recovery of duty foregone amount of Rs.9,95,584/-. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant submitted that the alternate benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. is admissible to them. The said benefit was initially denied by the adjudicating authority, but later on appeal, the learned Commissioner(Appeals), accepting the argument of the appellant, remanded the case with the direction to allow the benefit of the said notification and reassess the goods accordingly. However, without adhering to the direction of the learned Commissioner(Appeals), the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. on the ground that once the Bill of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
