TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revenue established, on the basis of legally sustainable evidence, that the goods re-exported after reprocessing were not the same as the goods re-imported, so as to sustain the duty demand and penalty.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the re-imported defective bulk drugs were genuinely reprocessed and re-exported on the next day in accordance with the exemption conditions, or whether some other consignment had been exported. The Department relied mainly on non-statutory inward and outward register entries and on labels showing "re-test date - Oct., 2001". Against that, the statutory and authenticated records supported the assessee's case that the goods were received, dried and blended quickly, and re-exported after completion of the required customs formalities. The finding of liability in the original order rested on suspicion and a stated preponderance of probability, but the record did not establish clear, tangible proof of clandestine removal or of substitution of the consignment. The explanation regarding the labels was found to be plausible and acceptable.
Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the re-exported goods were different from the re-imported goods, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
