9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 916 - AT - CustomsDuty Drawback - export of organic ginger slices - reward under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) - benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had availed duty drawback as well as the MEIS. Duty drawback is specified in the Column 2 of the table in Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of this Notification. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 for re-import of goods originally exported under duty drawback scheme and MEIS. Analysis: The appellant exported organic ginger slices under a duty drawback scheme and intended to claim rewards under the MEIS. Subsequently, the appellant re-imported the goods and claimed benefits under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.1995, which required re-exportation within a specified period. However, the appellant failed to fulfill this condition and requested to switch over to avail benefits under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996, which was denied by the department citing that the original export was under MEIS, not covered by the latter notification. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. and proposed to recover the foregone duty on re-importation. The appellant, on the other hand, repaid the duty drawback and MEIS benefits with interest, which was not disputed. The appellant argued that Notification No. 94/96-Cus. allowed for limited customs duty on re-importation based on specified criteria, including re-importation within a specified period and no change in ownership of the goods. Considering the facts and circumstances, the appellate authority held that the appellant had availed duty drawback and MEIS benefits, both specified in the Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The authority concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefits under this notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
|
