9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xported under DEPB scheme. As such, by comparing the two Serial Numbers, it can be fairly concluded that while S. No. 1 is applicable to the goods exported under claim for draw back etc. S. No. 2(a) takes it into ambit the goods actually exported under DEPB scheme and not under claim of DEPB scheme. In the present case, the goods stand exported under claim of DEPB scheme and not actually under DEPB scheme. As such, we hold that the export is not covered under S. No. 2(a) of the notification in which case, the same would be covered under S. No. 3 which allow reimport of the goods at nil rate of duty. The proviso (a) to the notification laying down the condition that reimport of the goods exported under DEPB scheme should be within one year o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd accordingly the DEPB claim of Rs. 5155.92 was not made by the appellants either before the department or before the DGFT authorities and no credit for DEPB was ever issued to the appellants. 2. The said consignment exported by the appellants was rejected by their buyers and accordingly the same was reimported under the cover of buyers invoice dated 10-6-2006 and bill of lading dated 14-7-2006. At the time of reimport of the goods, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996, in the Bill of Entry filed by them. The benefit in respect of two Serial Nos. of goods in the said Bill of Entry stand extended by the lower authorities. However, in respect of goods covered by S. No. 1 to 6 of the Bill of En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Heard learned advocate Shri V.R. Sethi appearing for the appellant and Shri Anil Khanna, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. The dispute in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the exports were made by the appellants under the claim of DEPB benefit but no such benefit stand extended to the appellant at the time of export. It is the appellants contention that inasmuch as the DEPB benefits were not extended to them, it cannot be held that the goods were exported under the DEPB scheme. Merely because the claim of DEPB was made which were not extended to them on the ground that certain conditions did not stand fulfilled by them, it cannot be held that exports were under the DEPB claim. In such a scenario, the limitation of on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
