9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T) (for the Bench)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. CC(A)/Cus/I G/D-I/227/2008 dated 12-6-08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant exported a consignment of gold jewellery on 5-9-07 in connection with an exhibition held in USA. They reimported the same consignment in January, 2008 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of gems and jewellery under the said DEEC Scheme. They have not imported any material duty free under the DEEC scheme or any other schemes in relation to export products. Therefore to apply the condition relating to such schemes to their case is incorrect. 4.2 He also submits that the Notification No. 94/1996 is independent and has no relevance or linkage to DEEC scheme; they have re-import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not find justification to extend this condition to exports and imports which are not under these schemes. The Customs Notification prescribe the condition of re-importation within three years of exportation. This condition, admittedly, stands fulfilled. In view of the above, we are not able to sustain the orders of the lower authorities denying the concession of the Notification No. 94/1996. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
