TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o file a Review Petition before the learned CESTAT, even the Review Petition has been dismissed by the learned CESTAT vide order dated 5 February 2020 and therefore, again the present appeals have been filed by the Assessee. 2. The controversy in brief is with regard to the Notification No.158/95/Cus on the question that whether the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, whether the Importer/ Assessee is liable to pay duty denying the concession/ exemption of the said Notification No.158/95/Cus or not? 3. The Tribunal in its original order dated 31 August 2017, had decided the said iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-(a) export the goods after repairs or reconditioning within the period as stipulated; (b) pay, on demand, in the event of his failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, an amount equal to the difference between the duty levied at the time of reimport and the duty leviable on such goods at the time of importation but for the exemption contained herein. From the above, what emerges is that to be eligible for the benefit under Notification No.158/95, the importation should take place within three years from the date of original exportation, goods are reexported within a maximum of twelve months from the date of re-importation and when such re-exportation is not effected as per the conditions of the Notification, the diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pairs/re-conditionings on the goods returned for that purpose. A close look at the conditionalities of the Notification would reveal that the legislature has sought to clip any possibility of misuse. For example, by requiring that such goods are re-imported not beyond the period of three years from the date of their export. So also, to prevent any misuse of facilitating provisions by way of retention of goods in India, the Notification also requires that after reconditioning/ repair, the re-import goods shall have to be reexported within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of such re-import. These time limits prescribed both, for re-importation as well as the re-exportation, in our view, are substantive conditionalities and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made thereunder is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Assessee on 5 February 2020, against which the present CMAs have been filed with the delay of 756 days which is explained on account of the fact that after review, both the Original Order of Tribunal dated 31 August 2017 and the Review Order dated 5 February 2020 have been assailed in the present appeals. For the aforesaid reasons, we have condoned the delay and heard the matters for admission. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee also emphasized that the second question framed by the learned Tribunal that since the Assessee was entitled to claim a duty drawback on the duty, if paid by the Assessee on such re-export of the goods beyond the prescribed time limit of one year, under the Notification No.158/95/Cus and ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessee. Therefore, that issue cannot be prejudged either by the Tribunal or by this Court. On the admitted breach of the Notification No.158/95/Cus, the Assessee/ Importer definitely became liable to pay the custom duty in question, denying the exemption under the said Notification in view of the admitted delay beyond the period of 12 months, for the re-export of the same goods. The learned CESTAT therefore in our opinion was justified in denying the said exemption to the Assessee and also rejecting the Rectification Application filed by the Assessee. What Tribunal has done is nothing but asking the Assessee to comply with the law. 7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t....