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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported compounded rubber sheets used for laying a synthetic athletic track were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 109/94-Cus. dated 13-7-1994, and whether the demand raised on failure to re-export the goods within the stipulated period was sustainable.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 109/94-Cus. was confined to synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under Heading 95.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The imported goods were compounded rubber in sheets and were classified under Heading 4005.99, not as synthetic tracks under Heading 9506.99. The circular relied upon by the appellants concerned a different notification and could not enlarge the scope of the notification in dispute. The notification also imposed a condition regarding re-export within six months, and non-compliance with that condition could not be excused on the ground that the failure was not attributable to the appellants.
Conclusion: The exemption was not available to the imported goods, and the demand was upheld against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification limited to specified goods by tariff heading cannot be extended to goods falling under a different tariff classification, and a stipulated re-export condition in the notification must be complied with as written.