2024 (4) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nathan, Consultant for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant exported leather shoes under claim of drawback. These goods were returned by the foreign buyer for the purpose of repair of the shoes. The appellant cleared these items under 4 Bills of Entry availing the benefit of Notification No.158/95 dt. 14.11.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his appeal. 2. The Ld. Consultant Shri A.R. Raghunathan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) failed to extend the benefit of Notification No.94/96 though the same was available to the appellant at the time of import itself. They had opted for the Customs Notification No.158/95 which was beneficial to them as the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Ld. A.R that in case the appellant is allowed benefit of Notification No.94/96 as amended, they are liable to return the drawback claimed by them. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.94/96 although they have not claimed the said benefit at the time of import of goods. From the facts narr....