https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353835 Exemption under the re-import notification could not be denied merely because the re-export of repaired goods occurred beyond six months without seeking extension, where the goods were in fact re-exported within one year and were not retained for consumption in India. The lapse in obtaining extension was treated as procedural on the facts, so denial of exemption and demand of customs duty were held unsustainable; at most, a penalty could arise for non-compliance with the procedural condition. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:52:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353835 Exemption under the re-import notification could not be denied merely because the re-export of repaired goods occurred beyond six months without seeking extension, where the goods were in fact re-exported within one year and were not retained for consumption in India. The lapse in obtaining extension was treated as procedural on the facts, so denial of exemption and demand of customs duty were held unsustainable; at most, a penalty could arise for non-compliance with the procedural condition. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353835