TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r appellants Shri Babulal R Mehta, Managing Director of RFL and Shri N R Mehta, Director of RFL, under Sec. 114(iii) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that RFL is engaged in the manufacture of different types of Flanges classifiable under CETH 73.07 for which RFL is also holding a Central Excise Registration falling under the jurisdiction of Supdt. Of Central Excise, Range Shaper (Veraval), Division II, Rajkot. RFL is also exporting the Flanges manufactured by him and at times, to meet the export requirements of the Customers, RFL imports certain categories of Flanges which are not manufactured in his registered unit but re-exported after undertaking certain processes. RFL is maintaining separate records of goods manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals are filed. 3. Shri P V Seth (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that at the time of each import an intimation was given to the Revenue to the effect that imported goods will be subject to certain process not amounting to manufacturer and thereafter the imported goods will be exported claiming drawback of 98% under Sec. 74 of the Customs Act 1962. He brought to the notice of the bench various such intimations given to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, appended in Memorandum of Appeal. One such intimation dtd 24.7.2006 with respect to B/E No. 154964 dtd 18.7.2006 was explained by the Advocate. It was emphasised by him that the subject consignments were exported after doing certain processes in appellant's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenged by the Revenue, cannot be reopened by way of raising demands. He also relied upon the decision of GOI in RE : Semiconductor Complex Ltd [2012(275)ELT 285 (GOI)] arguing that once identity of re-exported goods is established as per examination report then Sec. 74 DBK cannot be denied. Further, the Advocate of the appellants argued that cross examination of the witness whose statements are relied upon was not allowed by the Commissioner. 4. Shri G P Thomas (AR) on the other hand argued that when the case was investigation with respect to two live shipping bills the identity of the goods being re-exported could not be established. He made the bench go through the statements of the employees of the appellants to that effect where it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examining officer of the Revenue has recorded to have compared the weight, size, marks & numbers with respect to bills of entry and came to the conclusion that it is a case of re-export. Once after doing 100% examination and assessment it has been accepted that the identification of the imported goods is verified it is not proper to reopen the assessments made on the basis of shipping bills subsequently to hold that identity of the goods already exported is not established. Appellant has rightly contested that as per CESTAT's judgment in the case of M/s Mac Megha Agro Equipments (P) Ltd., vs. CC, Cochin (Supra) -2006(199)ELT 260 (Tri-Bang), if the assessment made by the proper Officer after due verification/examinations is not questioned th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held to be established by the proper officer and the assessments made have not been contested by the Revenue. Accordingly, demand of drawback of Rs 35,94,974/- and corresponding penalties upon the appellant are not sustainable. 7. So far as denial of drawback with respect to shipping bill No 1477 dtd 16/10/2006 and 1013 at 7/11/2006 is concerned, it is observed that appellants have furnished detailed re-conciliation statements, tally sheets and the records maintained by them to the lower authorities. These records establish a continuous link from the time of filing the bills of entry to the processing activities done and their re-export. These details include supplier name, number of pieces, appellant heat number, test number, lot numbe....