https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250996 Exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus was upheld because the factual identity of the jewellery exported and later re-imported could not be conclusively disproved on the available evidence. The dispute turned on whether the goods claimed to have returned to India were the same as those originally exported, and the evidentiary material did not resolve that controversy. Given the peculiar facts and the impracticability of photographic identification for a large quantity of jewellery, the evidentiary difficulty was resolved in favour of the appellant, and the benefit of the notification was allowed. en-us Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250996 Exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus was upheld because the factual identity of the jewellery exported and later re-imported could not be conclusively disproved on the available evidence. The dispute turned on whether the goods claimed to have returned to India were the same as those originally exported, and the evidentiary material did not resolve that controversy. Given the peculiar facts and the impracticability of photographic identification for a large quantity of jewellery, the evidentiary difficulty was resolved in favour of the appellant, and the benefit of the notification was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250996