https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765728 Re-imported goods were examined for entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. after an earlier appellate remand had directed reconsideration of the alternate notification claim. The lower authority could not refuse the benefit merely because it had not been claimed in the bill of entry, since the remand direction remained binding and the exemption was otherwise legally admissible. The denial was therefore held unsustainable, and the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was allowed. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765728 Re-imported goods were examined for entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. after an earlier appellate remand had directed reconsideration of the alternate notification claim. The lower authority could not refuse the benefit merely because it had not been claimed in the bill of entry, since the remand direction remained binding and the exemption was otherwise legally admissible. The denial was therefore held unsustainable, and the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765728