9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... components, they had also exported 3 moulds under form ARE-1 dt.15.12.2004 vide Invoice No. 479 & 480 dt.15.12.2004. On the request of their foreign buyer for repair/reconditioning of the moulds, the appellant has accepted for reimport of the moulds and filed Bill of Entry No.500969 dt.27.02.2006. Accepting the identification of these moulds, the authorities allowed without payment of duty under Notification No.158/95-CUS dt.14.11.1995 for the purpose of repair/reconditioning and re-export. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a letter dt.12.06.2009, about the clearance of re-imported goods to a 100% EOU, as per the directions of their foreign buyer and payment of duties of Rs.1,34,416/- on invoice dt.13.10.2008. On 27.07.2011, department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Lahari Impex Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Seaport-Import) [2020 (374) ELT 716 (Mad.)], wherein, it was held that "the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning having been exported after one year (which is also inclusive of six months extended period) of such re-import, the benefit of exemption under Notification No.158/95-Cus, would not be available in respect of such re-imported goods. Merely because the assessee could claim the duty drawback later on and it may give rise to a revenue neutral situation, it cannot be said that the period of one year prescribed in the said notification is without any meaning." Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any attendant requirement of the imported goods. Meaning thereby, once the duty at the rates given is discharged at the time of re-importation, there is no further requirement to re-export the goods. Therefore, Notification No.94/1996-Cus is not applicable in this matter. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended on the ground of limitation. It is mentioned in the SCN dt.27.07.2011 that submission was made by the importer vide their letter dt.03.07.2009. Therefore, SCN has been issued after two years. In this regard the Adjudicating Authority observed in his order that the present case relates to failure to fulfil the conditions attached to exemption notification and it is not a case of nonlevy, short levy or erroneous refund cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation. It is also important to mention that at the time of during the period under dispute, the period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was only six months. 12. Learned AR for department has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Lahari Impex Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Seaport- Import), Chennai (supra). But in that case, the issue relating to limitation was not involved. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Import) Vs Anurag Trading Company (supra) in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that SCN under Section 28B of the Customs Act, 1962, issued after 9 years of cause of action, could not be said to be ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
