2000 (8) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f at this stage. 2. Respondents are merchants who had exported certain quantity of Franch Oil NH IP out of which a part consignment was reimported at Chennai. The Customs authorities at Chennai initiated proceedings and sought to recover the duty on these reimported goods denying the benefit of import under Sl. No. [3] of Customs notification No. 94/96, dated 16-12-1996 as they found the goods not to be fixed vegetable oils and also should have been exported under Central Excise bond. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the records has found as follows :- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made in the appeal. In the absence of evidence adduced to the contrary, the goods are actua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Duty. It has been held in the O-in-O that the goods exported were classifiable under CTH 3004.90 & CETH 3003.10 and hence the goods were leviable to excise duty at the time of export and should have been exported under bond because no payment of Central Excise duty was made at the time of export. It is a well established law that burden of proof lies on the importers to claim any duty exemption. In this case to claim the benefit of 94/96 importer should have established that, (a)        goods were exported under bond without payment of duty in case of S. No. l(d) of table, or (b)        goods need not be exported under bond because they were not excisabl....