TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pressed his in principle, agreement for de-bonding. Before the unit was de-bonded appellants decided to clear Constanta tea bag machine on payment of duty for home consumption. Accordingly they filed ex-bond Bill of Entry for the said machine. The Bill of Entry was assessed and the appellant paid the said duty. However, the machine was not cleared/taken out of the factory i.e. there was no physical clearance of the machine from the bonded warehouse. After few weeks they located a customer abroad and decided to export the said machine. Accordingly they exported the machine on 22.1.2004 after obtaining due permission. While exporting the machine, they followed ARE1 procedure i.e. they filed ARE-1, the goods were examined by the jurisdictional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said section is applicable for the goods which are imported into India and upon such importation duty had been paid. In the present case when the goods were imported into India duty was not paid since these were exempt for clearance to 100% EOU. The learned advocate s another contention was that even though they paid duty by filing the ex-bond Bill of Entry, the goods were not taken out from the Customs bonded premises and the goods were still bonded and therefore there is no question of getting the drawback claim. The learned advocate also drew my attention to the fact that the goods were exported after due intimation to the department as is clear from the impugned order which notes that they have filed ARE1 and the goods were examine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed the export under AREI. It appears that neither jurisdictional Superintendent and Inspector nor the appellant have realized that they are required to follow the procedure as stipulated under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were still bonded under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and ARE-1 procedure is applicable to excisable goods produced in India, which is not the case here. Had any one of them realized, this difficulty would not have arisen and the appellant would have got refund of Customs duty paid by them. Thus I find the appellant has not followed the procedure correctly. Even the Central Excise officials have not dealt with the correct procedure. On a query from the Bench, the learned advocate on the instru....