9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months as Commissioner may allow - Appellant did not seek any permission to re-export the goods beyond the period of 6 months and as such none was granted - Benefit of exemption notification cannot be allowed as one condition is not satisfied - Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported on 13.01.2009 which was well within the period of one year from the date of importation though, more than six months after the date of importation. The appellant contended that delay of a few months in re-export was well within the power of the Commissioner to condone as Commissioner had power to extend the six months period for re-export by a further period of six months. The appellant cited the judgment in the case of Teletube Electronics Ltd. vs. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi 2009 (240) ELT 710 (Tri. Del.) and Government of India decision in the case of Harison Chemicals 2006 (200) ELT 171 (G.O.I.) in this regard. 4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. There is no dispute that the goods were re-imported within a peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 323) ELT 644 (SC) that it is trite that exemption notification are to be construed strictly and even if there is any doubt same is to be given in favour of the Department. The judgment of Teletube Electronics (supra) cited by the appellant was passed on the basis of concession inasmuch as it recorded that it is also not disputed that the time limit of six months prescribed for re-export is not a rigid one. The judgment passed on the basis of concession does not have precedential value. The other judgment in the case of Harison Chemicals (supra) cited by the appellant was a Government of India decision which does not constitute a binding precedent for CESTAT. Thus as one of the conditions of exemption Notification No. 158/1995-Cus. was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
