9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill of entry 5459642 dated 14/12/11 was filed at ICD, Patparganj for their clearance. Duty free import of the goods for repair and re-export was claimed under Notification No.158/95-CUS in terms of which duty free re-import of the goods earlier exported for repair/re-conditioning and re-export is permitted subject to conditions that - (a) such re-importation take place within three years from the date of export ; (b) the goods are re-exported within six months of the date of re-import or within such extended period not exceeding further period of six months allowed by the Commissioner ; (c) The Assistant Commissioner is satisfied as regards the identity of the goods ; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant for the first time vide their letter dated 04/10/12 and thereafter on 27/12/12 had requested for extension of six months for re-export, that both the requests were made after the expiry of six months from the date of import and the further period of six months has also expired on 23/11/12 and that in view of this, their requests for extension of period for further six months have no relevance, as the Competent Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs did not consider it. 1.4 On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24/01/13 while ordering the re-export of the goods decided not to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's order regarding levy of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the benefit of exemption Notification No.158/95-CUS dated 14/11/95 cannot be denied, as the goods had been presented for re-export on 27/11/12 and if the extension had been granted by the Commissioner in time, the re-export would have been completed within a period of one years. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order upholding the denial of exemption Notification No. 158/95-CUS dated 14/11/95 is not correct. 4. Shri Amresh Jain, the learned Departmental Representative, defending the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) pleaded that since the date of IGM is 24/11/11, it is this date which is to be treated as the date of importation of the goods and since the goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant on 04/10/12 had applied for extension of the period by another six months, it is seen that absolutely no decision was taken by the Customs. Since, the bill of entry has been filed on 14/12/11 and the goods had been presented to the customs for re-export on 27/11/12, in our view the goods should be treated as having been exported within a period of one year and the benefit of notification should be extended as the notification stipulates the re-export within a period of six months period which can be further extended by the Commissioner by another six months and just because the Commissioner in this case has chosen just to sit over the appellant's request for extension and not take any decision, the benefit of the exemption cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
