TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's Compliance with Re-Export Conditions Saves Bank Guarantee</h1> <h3>M/s. Leather Sellers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Patparganj</h3> M/s. Leather Sellers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Patparganj - TMI Issues:1. Appropriation of bank guarantee for re-importation of goods not re-exported within 6 months as per notification No.158/95.2. Compliance with the conditions of notification No.158/95.3. Consideration of extension of time for re-exportation within the specified period.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the impugned order where the bank guarantee was forfeited for not re-exporting goods within 6 months as required by notification No.158/95. The appellant re-imported defective goods but failed to re-export them within the stipulated time frame, resulting in the bank guarantee being appropriated. The appellant argued that they re-exported the goods within 9 months and should not have to forfeit the bank guarantee as they substantially complied with the notification's conditions.2. The appellant contended that in a previous round of litigation, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the notification's conditions and their request for an extension of time. The appellant believed they had complied with the notification by re-exporting the goods within three years of re-importation, even though they did not seek prior permission for an extension within the initial 6 months. The appellant argued that the requirement for seeking an extension within 6 months was not explicitly stated in the notification, and therefore, they should not lose the bank guarantee.3. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of notification No.158/95, which required re-imported goods to be re-exported within six months or with an extension granted by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not violate the main condition of re-exporting within three years of re-importation. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous judgment where no extension was claimed, emphasizing that in this case, the appellant did apply for an extension after the initial 6 months had passed. As the appellant had substantially complied with the notification's conditions, the Tribunal held that the bank guarantee should not be forfeited. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 