2014 (1) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as made by the appellants and the same was never extended. In fact, at the time of export, it was found that the consignment did not fulfil the necessary conditions for DEPB benefit and accordingly the DEPB claim of Rs. 5155.92 was not made by the appellants either before the department or before the DGFT authorities and no credit for DEPB was ever issued to the appellants. 2. The said consignment exported by the appellants was rejected by their buyers and accordingly the same was reimported under the cover of buyers invoice dated 10-6-2006 and bill of lading dated 14-7-2006. At the time of reimport of the goods, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996, in the Bill of Entry filed by them. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;   ..... (d)     ....." Inasmuch as the reimport in the present case was after a period of two years, the benefit of notification cannot be extended to the appellant and stand denied by both the authorities below. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri V.R. Sethi appearing for the appellant and Shri Anil Khanna, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. The dispute in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the exports were made by the appellants under the claim of DEPB benefit but no such benefit stand extended to the appellant at the time of export. It is the appellants contention that inasmuch as the DEPB benefits were not extended to them, it cannot be held th....