9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplaint from the foreign buyer and the appellant re-processed the imported goods and finally exported the same which is not in dispute. Further, the Commissioner(Appeals) has not given any findings on this material aspect also. Also, the appellant s case falls under Sl.No.14 of Annexure-I of Notification No.52/03-Cus dt. 31/03/2003 wherein a period of three years is provided from the date of exportation for repair and reconditioning and the appellant re-exported the goods within this period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/284/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20665/2019 - Dated:- 22-8-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri N. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was not entitled to claim duty exemption on re-importation of exported goods since in terms of Sl.No.15 in Annexure-I to Notification No.52/03-Cus dt. 31/03/2003, the goods could have been imported only if the import had taken place before the expiry of one year from the date of export. Hence the Department demanded the duty. The original authority after hearing the appellant ordered the appellant to pay ₹ 3,11,151/- being the duty foregone on import of goods. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat after repair, appellant has reexported the same to the same buyer which has not been disputed. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, the appellant is 100% EOU and they had exported the final product and subsequently the final product was re-imported for carrying out re4 processing due to complaint from the foreign buyer and the appellant re-processed the imported goods and finally exported the same which is not in dispute. Further we find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has not given any findings on this material aspect also. Further we also find that appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
