9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed Bill of Entry No. 017247, dated 22-5-2001 for re-importing 490 pieces of Artificial Graphite Products originally exported vide SB Nos. 22417 dated 26-6-99, 222957, dated 27-7-99 and 23559, dated 2-9-99 out of the export of 586 pieces exported under DEPB scheme and 394 pieces exported under the DEEC scheme. The appellants claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 94/96. Since the re-import was made beyond the period of one year time limit provided for under the said Notification, they applied to the Commissioner of Customs, for condoning the delay. Inasmuch as on scrutiny of the file by the department, it was noticed by the original authority that the DEE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to be considered and the procedural lapses if any should not come in the way of grant of benefit to them. The lower appellate authority after considering their submission as noted above has passed the impugned order and upholding the order of the lower original authority against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Apart from reiterating the grounds taken before the lower appellate authority the appellants have also taken the following grounds : (a) There was no procedural lapses involved in this case as held by the lower appellate authority inasmuch as there was no procedure to be fulfilled. (b) In the instant case the DGFT and Central Excise authorities have been intimated and no action has been taken against the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer exporters (appellants in this case) who are registered with the Central Excise Department may be permitted to clearance of such goods without payment of Central Excise duty under transit bond to be executed with the Customs authorities, such bond will be cancelled on the production of certificates issued by the Central Excise authorities about receipt of re-imported goods into their factory. 4. Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the grounds on which the appellants are denied the benefit is that the DEEC book has been finally closed, as conditions Nos. I and IV do not apply to the facts of the present case. He has also invited our attention to vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is also no quarrel with the proposition that such notification should be given their due effect keeping in view the underlying purposes. (g) 2000 (122) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) CCE v. Himalayan Co-Operative Milk Product Union Ltd. wherein it was held that the purpose of the Notification should not be defeated nor those who may be entitled for it are to be deprived by interpreting the notification which may give it some meaning other than what is clearly and plainly flowing from it. (h) 2000 (121) E.L.T. 91 (T) in the case of St. Stephens Hospital v. CC, New Delhi in which it was held that condition regarding furnishing of certificate from DGHS and Ministry of Health and Family welfare regarding installation of imported equipment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... devoid of merits. He has further submitted that in this case the appellants have come out of the DEEC scheme and their DEEC book has been closed and once it is closed they have to be considered as any normal importer only and hence they have to pay the full customs duty as applicable. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the case records and the various case laws cited by both the sides. We observe that the impugned order deals with the claim made by the appellants for the benefits of Notification 94/96 in respect of exports made under DEEC scheme and re-import of the rejected goods out of the exports made thereunder. The short issue that falls consideration in this appeal is as to whether once the DEEC b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is own has come out. The Notification in question prescribes a time limit that the re-import should take place within a period of one year from the date of exportation, whereas re-importation in the present case has taken place after a delay of nine months, i.e. much beyond the period of one year. It is a well settled proposition of law that a Notification has to be interpreted strictly according to the words used therein and nothing can be added or deleted. The case laws cited above also support the departmental view. The Notification very clearly stipulates that in order to enjoy the concession envisaged therein, the DEEC book, should not have been closed and export de-logged. Non-closure of the DEEC book is therefore sine qua non for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
