9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-5-2003 by extending benefit of notification No. 84/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 after condonation of delay in the period of re-import from the date of export by the Commissioner of Customs. Thereafter, the appellant imported another consignment of 17.625 MT of the said goods and filed Bill of Entry No. 3636 dated 19-1-2004 claiming the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996. The department was prima facie of the view that the aforesaid goods were not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 94/96 in terms of clause (a) of the 1st proviso to the table annexed to the said notification, as re-importation had taken place after more than the prescribed period of 2 years from the date of exportation. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed time limit for re-import were mutually exclusive conditions is not having any bearing on the issue involved in the case. The subject re-import was very well covered under Sr. No. 2(e) and first proviso (a) to the table annexed to the said Notification. Therefore, she denied the benefit of notification 94/96 on the import of 17.625 MT of Dextrose Anhydrous under Bill of Entry No. 3636 dated 19-1-2004. 3. Aggrieved with the above order of Deputy Commissioner, appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same on the ground that, even if the export was de-logged, the same continued to be an export under DEEC and the re-importation having taken place after the prescribed period of two years, cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, when they de-logged the entry for export relating to the goods in DEEC book. However, he has observed that the question for consideration as to whether such de-logging changed the nature of the shipping bill under which the goods were exported, which was admittedly a DEEC shipping bill. We find that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Madurai v. Mittulal Lalah & Sons - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 188 (Tri.- Chennai). It was observed by the Bench that, inasmuch as the DEEC book was de-logged, the exports have become non-DEEC exports. Thus, the benefit of notification would be admissible to the assessee and the time for re-import was rightly extended. By observing so, the Tribunal rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
