2024 (12) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Technology India Pvt. Ltd., had filed 11 Shipping Bills from 14.05.2020 to 03.07.2021 mentioning that filed for 'No Foreign Exchange Involved' (NFEI) instead of Commercial Transaction Mode or against remittance. At a later date on 10.08.2021 and 14.12.2021 to comply with the RBI compliance and to complete the EDPMS process, they requested for amending these 11 Shipping Bills to Scheme Code 21. The Principal Commissioner in the impugned order taking into consideration the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the CBIC Circular No.36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 allowed conversion of these shipping bills from NFEI 99 to EOU / EPZ / SEZ / EHTP / STP (21) on the ground that they do not claim any export incentive schemes. On review, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC: 2024 (2) TMI 1098 (CESTAT-BANG.) * Man Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai: 2006 (202) ELT 433 (CESTAT-MUM.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported at 2007 (216) ELT 15 (Bom.) and further affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (326) ELT A34 (SC) 5. Heard both sides. The limited issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Principal Commissioner had rightly allowed conversion of 11 Shipping Bills from NEFI to EOU and other schemes. It is an admitted fact that this conversion has no revenue implication since the conversion was allowed only on the ground that the respondent does not claim any export incentive schemes. The only ground taken by the Revenue is that the request for conversion was fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be." 4.1 From the above Section, it is clear that no time limit is prescribed. We find that the request of the appellant for conversion was rejected on the sole ground of limitation as prescribed under Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. We find that since the time limit has not been prescribed under the Act, the same cannot be fixed by way of the circular. Therefore, if at all there is a time limit by way of circular, it is only procedural requirement. Therefore, on this grou....