9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepting the argument of the appellant, remanded the case with the direction to allow the benefit of the said notification and reassess the goods accordingly. However, without adhering to the direction of the learned Commissioner(Appeals), the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of N/N. 94/96-Cus. on the ground that once the Bill of Entry filed and goods were cleared, benefit of notification not claimed previously, cannot be claimed subsequently. The same view was upheld by the learned Commissioner(Appeals). It is found that subsequent impugned order is in contravention to the earlier direction given by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) allowing the benefit of N/N.94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996. In absence of any appellate order from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said consignment through their letter dated 14.06.2005. The consignment was imported against Bill of Entry No. 160863 dated 16.06.2005 and cleared by the appellant on execution of bond with Bank Guarantee pending production of Re-export Certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. The appellant could not re-export the goods within the stipulated period of six months nor within the extended period, which expired on 15.06.2006. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of amount of Rs.9,90,407/- with interest and DEPB benefit of Rs.79,285/- in terms of the bond. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and also denied the alternate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that on merit, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. as an alternative claim which ought to have been allowed in view of the judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Olam Agro India Ltd. Vs. CC, Ahmedabad [Final Order No.10328/2024 dated 05.02.2024] and the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of SSK Export Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin [Final Order No.21100/2024 dated 13.11.2024]. Further, he submits that during the course of stay proceedings, the appellant had deposited the applicable duty taking into consideration the benefit of the Notification No.94/96-Cus amounting to Rs.3,94,879/- and interest of Rs.3,76,572/- vide challan dated 24.06.2014. Furnishing the break up, he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on appeal, the learned Commissioner(Appeals), accepting the argument of the appellant, remanded the case with the direction to allow the benefit of the said notification and reassess the goods accordingly. However, without adhering to the direction of the learned Commissioner(Appeals), the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. on the ground that once the Bill of Entry filed and goods were cleared, benefit of notification not claimed previously, cannot be claimed subsequently. The same view was upheld by the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 7. We find that subsequent impugned order is in contravention to the earlier direction given by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) allowing the benefit of Notification No.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
