9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Shri R. Rajaraman, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant exported leather shoes under claim of drawback. These goods were returned by the foreign buyer for the purpose of repair of the shoes. The appellant cleared these items under 4 Bills of Entry availing the benefit of Notification No.158/95 dt. 14.11.1995 on executing Bond and Bank Guarant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. Raghunathan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) failed to extend the benefit of Notification No.94/96 though the same was available to the appellant at the time of import itself. They had opted for the Customs Notification No.158/95 which was beneficial to them as the duty was NIL at the time of imports. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed benefit of Notification No.94/96 as amended, they are liable to return the drawback claimed by them. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.94/96 although they have not claimed the said benefit at the time of import of goods. From the facts narrated above, it can be seen that that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of import of the goods. Following the cited decisions (supra), we are of the view that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.94/96. However, it is made clear that the appellant has to pay back the drawback claimed by them along with interest. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, on the condition that appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
