https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348174 Benefit under Notification No. 158/95 could not be denied merely because extension of time was sought after expiry of the initial six-month period, where the goods were ultimately re-exported within the notification framework. The notification required re-importation within three years and re-export within six months of re-importation, or within a further period allowed by the Commissioner; it did not expressly require the extension request to be filed before the six months expired. As the principal condition was not breached and an extension application had in fact been made, denial of relief and forfeiture of the bank guarantee were unjustified. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 05:58:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348174 Benefit under Notification No. 158/95 could not be denied merely because extension of time was sought after expiry of the initial six-month period, where the goods were ultimately re-exported within the notification framework. The notification required re-importation within three years and re-export within six months of re-importation, or within a further period allowed by the Commissioner; it did not expressly require the extension request to be filed before the six months expired. As the principal condition was not breached and an extension application had in fact been made, denial of relief and forfeiture of the bank guarantee were unjustified. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348174