Re-imported goods for relabelling cannot lose notification benefit when identity is undisputed and compliance is the only purpose.

Re-imported goods sent back only for relabelling retained eligibility for Notification No. 94/96-Cus. where their identity as the same goods was undisputed and the record showed no objection from the Port Health Officer. The article states that, in such circumstances, exemption cannot be denied on a hyper-technical view when the importer had re-exported the goods solely to meet labelling requirements. The denial of the notification benefit was therefore set aside, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee with consequential relief according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported goods, after being sent back for relabelling, were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996.

Analysis: The goods had originally been imported, duty paid, and then re-exported only for relabelling. There was no dispute that the re-imported consignments were the same goods sent back for rectification, and the Port Health Officer had raised no objection to their re-import. In these circumstances, denial of the notification benefit was found to be unjustified, especially when the importer had undergone the exercise solely to comply with the labelling requirement and the record did not support a contrary conclusion.

Conclusion: The denial of the notification benefit was set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was annulled and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are re-imported after re-export solely for relabelling and the identity of the goods is not in dispute, exemption or notification benefit cannot be denied on a hyper-technical view.

---