https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399810 Time limits in Notification No. 158/95-Cus. were treated as substantive conditions for exemption on re-import of repaired or reconditioned goods, so breach of the permitted period disentitled the importer from duty exemption and made the forgone duty recoverable. A plea of revenue neutrality based on a possible future drawback claim was rejected because drawback was contingent and required separate adjudication; it could not be assumed in advance to extinguish the duty liability arising from non-compliance with the notification. The document states that the appeals failed because the substantive exemption condition was breached and the duty demand remained enforceable. en-us Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2021 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399810 Time limits in Notification No. 158/95-Cus. were treated as substantive conditions for exemption on re-import of repaired or reconditioned goods, so breach of the permitted period disentitled the importer from duty exemption and made the forgone duty recoverable. A plea of revenue neutrality based on a possible future drawback claim was rejected because drawback was contingent and required separate adjudication; it could not be assumed in advance to extinguish the duty liability arising from non-compliance with the notification. The document states that the appeals failed because the substantive exemption condition was breached and the duty demand remained enforceable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399810