9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CESTAT, even the Review Petition has been dismissed by the learned CESTAT vide order dated 5 February 2020 and therefore, again the present appeals have been filed by the Assessee. 2. The controversy in brief is with regard to the Notification No.158/95/Cus on the question that whether the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, whether the Importer/ Assessee is liable to pay duty denying the concession/ exemption of the said Notification No.158/95/Cus or not? 3. The Tribunal in its original order dated 31 August 2017, had decided the said issue against the Assessee with the following obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand, in the event of his failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, an amount equal to the difference between the duty levied at the time of reimport and the duty leviable on such goods at the time of importation but for the exemption contained herein. From the above, what emerges is that to be eligible for the benefit under Notification No.158/95, the importation should take place within three years from the date of original exportation, goods are reexported within a maximum of twelve months from the date of re-importation and when such re-exportation is not effected as per the conditions of the Notification, the differential duty liability on account of availment of Notification No. 158/95- Cus. at re-importation is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would reveal that the legislature has sought to clip any possibility of misuse. For example, by requiring that such goods are re-imported not beyond the period of three years from the date of their export. So also, to prevent any misuse of facilitating provisions by way of retention of goods in India, the Notification also requires that after reconditioning/ repair, the re-import goods shall have to be reexported within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of such re-import. These time limits prescribed both, for re-importation as well as the re-exportation, in our view, are substantive conditionalities and not merely procedural. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Mangalore Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs. Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of frau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order of Tribunal dated 31 August 2017 and the Review Order dated 5 February 2020 have been assailed in the present appeals. For the aforesaid reasons, we have condoned the delay and heard the matters for admission. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee also emphasized that the second question framed by the learned Tribunal that since the Assessee was entitled to claim a duty drawback on the duty, if paid by the Assessee on such re-export of the goods beyond the prescribed time limit of one year, under the Notification No.158/95/Cus and therefore, since it will be a revenue neutral situation, therefore, there is no point in the Assessee being required to first pay the said custom duty and then claim the duty drawback, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly became liable to pay the custom duty in question, denying the exemption under the said Notification in view of the admitted delay beyond the period of 12 months, for the re-export of the same goods. The learned CESTAT therefore in our opinion was justified in denying the said exemption to the Assessee and also rejecting the Rectification Application filed by the Assessee. What Tribunal has done is nothing but asking the Assessee to comply with the law. 7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007(213) ELT 490 (SC) is wholly misplaced. In that matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a short order, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
