9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 94/96-Cus. In our view, there is no reason to deny the alternate exemption notification. If the importer fails to comply with the condition of the notification which was claimed at the time of import, the duty is required to be paid as per the rate applicable and as per any other notification, if available to the imported goods. Only because the notification was not claimed at the time of import and claimed later on, the legitimate exemption, which otherwise available under the statute, cannot be denied. This issue has been settled in the various judgments. In the case of SHARE MEDICAL CARE Versus UNION OF INDIA [2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that alternate Notification No. 65/88-Cus shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide their letter dated 09.10.2002 to reassess the said consignment under alternate notification No.94/96-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 10.09.2003 rejected the request for reassessment of import under Notification No. 64/96-Cus on the ground that at the time of export the appellant have claimed the exemption Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Accordingly a Bond and Bank Guarantee were executed and accepted by the department. The appellant was supposed to re-export the goods within six months. However since the appellant could not re-export the goods within stipulated time period the duty forgone was demanded. Aggrieved by the said demand notice, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extendable time period. Therefore the appellant was duty bound to pay the duty foregone amount of duty for which Bond and Bank Guarantee was executed in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. He placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. R.R. Kobler Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. CC, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 2016 (333) E.L.T. 98 (Tri. - Del.) 2. Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai-I 2014 (310) E.L.T. 822 (Tri.-Mum) 3. Daffodils International (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., New Delhi 2006 (197) E.L.T. 399 (Tri.-Del.) 4. Asmal Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2012 (280) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.Mum) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not comply the post import condition of re-export of the goods within stipulated period. Hence the issue in hand is squarely covered by the above referred Hon'ble Apex Court judgment. 5. As regard the judgments relied upon by the Ld. AR, we find that all those judgments are on denial of exemption Notification No.158/95-Cus for non-compliance of re-export condition, whereas in the present case the appellant is not seeking relief under the said notification, their claim is on alternate Notification No. 94/96-Cus which is covered by the Apex court judgment of Share Medicals Care (supra). Hence all the judgments relied upon by Ld. AR stand distinguished. 6. As per the above discussion and issue being settled one, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
