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>Tribunal Upholds Decision on Connector Re-import Case Clarifying Duty Exemption Eligibility</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI Versus SRINAR ELECTRONICS (P) LTD.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision in the case involving the re-import of connectors by M/s. Srinar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. under ... Re-import- Notification No. 158/95-Cus- Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-96- whether to the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was available to the importer under the DEEC scheme, while the goods imported by the respondents herein were under bond without payment of Central Excise Duty, covered by Sl. No. 1(d) of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Held that- the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., the order of the Tribunal’s order is set aside and the order of the Commissioner of Customs restored. In the present case, the goods in question have been exported under the DEPB scheme in terms of Clause 1(d) of the Notification No. 94/96. Therefore hold that the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 has been rightly extended to the importers and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Issues:Re-export of goods under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., distinction between DEEC and DEPB schemes.Analysis:The case involved the re-import of connectors by M/s. Srinar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. for repair and return, with the requirement to re-export within one year. A Show Cause Notice was issued for non-compliance, leading to a demand for duty. The appeal focused on the eligibility for the benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., extended by the lower appellate authority based on a Tribunal decision. The Revenue challenged this extension, citing a Supreme Court reversal of a similar Tribunal decision.The Tribunal considered the Apex Court's judgment, distinguishing between the DEEC and DEPB schemes. The Court emphasized that the benefit under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was not applicable to goods exported under DEPB but only under DEEC or EPCG schemes. The Apex Court's ruling clarified that the DEEC scheme involves duty-free clearance for manufacturing exports, while the DEPB scheme issues scrips for duty payment. The Court highlighted the specific conditions and limitations under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules regarding duty-free exports under bond.The Tribunal concluded that since the goods in question were exported under the DEPB scheme, they fell under Clause 1(d) of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., making the importers eligible for the benefit. Upholding the lower authority's decision, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the extension of the Notification's benefit to the importers. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the specific conditions of the applicable notifications and schemes in determining eligibility for duty exemptions and benefits.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal considerations regarding re-export under specific notifications, eligibility for benefits under different schemes, and the significance of complying with the prescribed conditions for duty-free imports and re-imports.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
