AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal"). 2 The appellant - assessee exported quantity of 25.902 MT of Rayon Tyre Yarn (for short the "said Tyre yarn") to a Company in Germany. According to the case of the appellant-assessee, during the course of converting/processing, the said Tyre yarn was found to be defective. A part of the said Tyre yarn was used and was converted to Tyre Cord by a company in Germany. It is the case of the appellant that during the said process, only a part of the said yarn was used and remaining part was kept as it is in the original packing. It is the case of the appellant that on receiving a complaint on this aspect, the appellant deputed its technical personnel to the plant of the company in Germany with a view to ascertain the true facts. After ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The claim for refund was accepted under the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By order dated 2nd February, 2002, the appeal preferred by the department was allowed. An appeal was preferred against the order in appeal by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the questions of law framed in the order dated 21st February, 2007. He submitted that in the present case even going by the Show Cause Notice, the reimported goods are the same and there is a chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of Tyre yarn into Tyre cord cannot be said to be a manufacturing process. He submitted that, in any event, even in the Show Cause Notice, it is not disputed that the goods reimported are the same. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gaurav Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2004(170) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). He also placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2008 (225) E.L.T. 401 (S. C.). Lastly, he pressed into service the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch excise duty leviable at the time and place of importation of the goods. (c) in any case where the goods were exported in bond, without payment of (i) the customs duty leviable on the imported materials, if any, used in the manufacture of the goods or (ii) the excise duty leviable on the indigenous materials, if any, used in the manufacture of the goods, or (iii) the excise duty, if any, leviable on the goods on payment of customs duty equal to the aggregate amount of all such duties calculated at the rates prevailing at the time and place of importation of the goods. (d) in any other case, without payment of duty. Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 lays down the rule with regard to reimportation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... materials could not be established due to change in the original form of the goods which were exported against the Shipping Bills mentioned in the B/Entry. Section 20 allows re-importation of those goods which are manufactured in India and have been reimported in the same condition in which they were exported. In the instant case, the goods in question had changed their original form and were subsequently imported as they were found defective for the manufacture of the Tyre Code [Sic] Fabric. In view of the foregoing paras it is revealed that in absence of identity not established at the time of importation the benefit of Section 20 cannot be available to the imported goods. (underline supplied) Thus, the allegation is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cture. The said decisions are of no assistance as we are not concerned with the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and the meaning of manufacture for the purposes of Central Excise Act. 12. As pointed out earlier, the proviso is by way of an exception to the general Rule under Sub Section (1) of Section 20. Only if the conditions of the proviso are satisfied, reimport without payment of duty is permissible. The proviso is applicable provided satisfaction is recorded by the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported. In fact of the case and even in the reply, the appellant accepted that the goods are not the same, in the sense that what was exported was the Nylon yarn and by adopti....