2016 (11) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ground that as per the notification the re-imported goods after repair should have been re-exported within a stipulated period of six month. However the appellant has neither exported the goods within the stipulated period nor sought extension of time for re-import. Therefore there is a violation of the condition provided under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected, therefore the appellant is before us. 2. Shri V.M. Doiphode, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have filed the shipping bill for export on 8.3.2004 i.e. within one year from the date of re-import which was made on 11.3.2003. The appellant al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aimed the alternative exemption notification No. 94/96-Cus dt. 16.12.1996. He submits that this notification was clearly admissible to the appellant whereunder no time limit is prescribed. Therefore the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notification No. 94/96-Cus. is admissible. 3. On the other hand, Shri Chatru Singh Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai-I 2014 (310) E.L.T. 822 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) R.R. Kobler Overseas P. Ltds. Vs. C.C., ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 2016 (333) ELT 98 (Tri.-Del.)....