9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lent to the excise duty payable on the goods was charged by the Customs Authority at the time of reimportation. The said duty was to the tune of Rs. 2,70,375/-. 2. On reconsideration the respondents filed the refund claim for the said amount of duty. They were of the view that no duty was chargeable on the goods exported under Central Excise Bond. They were entitled to duty free clearance of the goods at the time of reimportation in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it stood at that time. However, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund). 3. On appeal, the respondents succeeded. Reasoning of the lower authority in giving the benefit to the respondents is as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and later reimported. Ld. JDR submits that no customs bond would be taken for waiver of excise duty leviable on the individual materials used in manufacture of export goods. It can only be `excise bond for excise duty. He further submits that it not only refer to the Central Excise duty but also any other state excise duty as is apparent from the earlier clause. Therefore, it is for this reason that the expression `bond referred in Clause (c) is not qualified by `excise or `customs . He therefore, submits that since the goods in the present case had been exported under Central Excise bond, therefore the provisions of Clause (c) would apply and duty had been rightly charged on reimportation of the goods by the lower appellate authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i D.K. Jain submits that he fully relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court. This judgment, he further submits, is binding on this Tribunal. He relies on the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 624). Ld Advocate, therefore submits that the lower appellate authority has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) and Tribunal should also rely upon the same inasmuch as there is no contrary judgment of any High Court. 9. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe, after carefully going through the judgment of the Madras High Court and as rightly pointed out by the ld. JDR that the said judgment was delivered for l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances, we are of the view that duty has been correctly charged by the Customs Authority in this case at the time of reimportation of the goods. 11. At this stage, ld. Advocate Shri D.K. Jain for the respondents submits that the goods had been taken to the factory from where the goods were exported in the first instance and they are lying in the non-duty paid stock and it would be again charged to duty when it is cleared from the factory. If this is the correct situation, then, this situation will also be wrong and we agree with the ld. Advocate for the respondents that no second duty on the same goods can be charged on the same goods when they are cleared from RG I (non-duty paid) stock since the duty equal to the excise duty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
