TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether duty could be demanded on goods cleared for export but returned damaged during transit and brought back to the factory under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. (ii) Whether the demand for the earlier damaged consignment could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Issue (i): Whether duty could be demanded on goods cleared for export but returned damaged during transit and brought back to the factory under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis: The goods were cleared for export, damaged in transit, returned to the factory, and re-warehoused after departmental verification. The dispute turned on the place of removal and whether the goods, having been cleared for export under bond and returned before export, could be treated as removed for purposes of duty. The settled position applied was that, in export cases of this nature, the place of removal is the port of export and not the factory gate. Goods destroyed before export are to be treated as destroyed before removal, and the demand on their full value cannot be sustained where the factual and procedural requirements were complied with.
Conclusion: Duty was not payable on the returned damaged export goods on the full value, and the assessee was entitled to relief.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the earlier damaged consignment could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Analysis: In the earlier instance, the damaged goods were brought back, permission for destruction was obtained, the goods were destroyed under departmental supervision, and duty on scrap value was paid and accepted by the Department. In those circumstances, reopening the matter and demanding duty on the same goods by invoking the extended period was not justified.
Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand and the appellate order confirming it were set aside, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods cleared for export and returned damaged before export are treated as not removed beyond the port of export, and duty cannot be demanded on their full value when the export procedure and departmental verification have been complied with.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
