9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby demand of Rs. 2,06,551/- was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made export of certain Leather jackets and part consignment was re-imported to remove some defects and re-import was made under Notification 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95 and as per the provisions of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear. The contention is as on the recommendation of Customs authorities the bank guarantee extended by the bank. At the time of re-export, no objection was raised and goods were allowed to re-export, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 3. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of IOC Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 834 to submit that the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed facts are that the appellant re-exported goods after one year and four months. As per provisions of the notification No. 158/95-Cus., the goods are to be re-exported within six months or such extended period not exceeding a further period of six months by the Commissioner of Customs. The goods were not re-exported within the period as prescribed under the notification. Therefore, in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
