2019 (5) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion find under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty liability along with interest. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the M/s Bevel Gears India Pvt. Ltd. have imported 136 Nos of Gear Sets from M/s HIC Corporation, Japan vide Bill of Entry No.9708556 dated 06.04.2013 and claimed Customs Duty exemption benefit under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995, so as to re-export the goods after repair within the stipulated time. However, the goods were neither re-exported after repairs/reconditioning nor there was a request for the extended period by the appellant. Accordingly, the lower adjudicating authority after following the principle of natural justice has passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g decisions: • Micro Engineers (India) v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2003 (276) ELT 145 (SC). • Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Vadodara - 2012 (276) ELT 145 (SC). 4.1. He further submitted that the respondent has failed to fulfill all the conditions of the exemption Notification and therefore, the penalty and confiscation has rightly been ordered. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that the respondent tried their level best to repair the said imported Gear Sets but due to some technical issues they could not repair the same as per the specification of their client and their client has not agreed to take back the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lore v. Sun Knit Wear Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (278) ELT 165 (Kar.). • Hotel Surya Continental v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi - 2014 (314) ELT 564 (Tri. Del.). • Jeetendra Shah v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai - 2008 (9) TMI 249 CESTAT Chennai. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of CESTAT for dropping the penalty and the confiscation. Further, I find that the goods have been imported by the respondent by claiming benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 so as to re-export the same after doing the necessary repair which the responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of such duty under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, the entire demand is in terms of Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. Therefore, in the circumstances, Section 114A of the Act was not applicable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of Jeetendra Shah v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai [2008 (9) TMI 249 CESTAT Chennai]. 10. In the instant case, it is seen that the appellant has not mis-used the benefit extended by the Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995, with intent to evade payment of duty. The said goods could not be repaired as per the specification of the overseas client and therefore could not export the same within the ....