9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olybutadine Rubber Budene 1280 being re-shipment due to cargo being defective and not as per specification. The said goods were imported vide 8 bills of entry nos. 4684 dated 29.12.2000, 2143 dated 13.01.2001, 2378 dated 14.12.2000, 1684 dated 12.12.2000, 2134 dated 13.01.2001, 4702 dated 29.12.2000, 2385 dated 14.12.2000 and 1686 dated 11.12.2000 and cleared by debiting the duty credit under DEPB licence no. 0510026407 dated 17.10.2000 for Rs. 8,48,079/-, 0510026455 dated 18.10.2000 for Rs. 8,40,801/- and 0510024448 dated 06.09.2000 for 17,66,283/-. The appellants also paid CVD amounting to Rs. 19,88,738/- in cash. 2.1 In view of the re-export the appellants vide letter dated 08.10.2001 and 16.10.2001, requested for issue of the certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme found defective, it was decided that the Commissioner of Customs may permit re-export and grant a DEPB credit entitlement certificate to the exporter and this certificate shall be for DEPB credit equal to 98% of the DEPB credit which was debited at the time of imports of goods into India, proved that (i) re-export shall take place form the same port as the port of import, (ii) the goods are re-exported within six months from the date of import, (iii) the Asstt./Dy. Commissioner of Customs is satisfied as regards the identity of the goods, and (iv) the goods have not been used after import. 2.3 While examining appellants claim in terms of the said circular the lower authority observed that the import took place in Mumbai where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rochiram & Sons Vs. Union of India 2008 (226) ELT 20 (S.C.). He would also submit that this Tribunal in the case of Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai-III 2015 (324) ELT 616 (Tri.- Mumbai) in an identical situation held in favour of the assessee. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we notice that the issue is no more res integra. The submission of the appellant is that imported goods were re-exported being found not suitable for their purposes is not in dispute; both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n DEPB book either by reversing the entry or by issuing a fresh DEPB book, as provided in the public notice dated 30-6-2000. Public Notice dated 30-6-2000 is procedural in nature and it does not make any substantive change in the policy. Procedural laws cannot be equated with substantive laws. Substantive laws are generally not retrospective unless specified to the contrary by the Legislature. Insofar as procedural laws are concerned, they may be retrospective unless shown to the contrary. Otherwise also, once the imported parts which were found to be defective are re-exported, assessee under the policy itself without reference to the public notice would be entitled for adjustment of the duty paid by way of adjustment in DEPB. The revenue c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
