TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Shri P. Dinesha The assessee appears to have imported certain goods into India; some of which were exported for which, the appellant had claimed duty drawback. The facts are not in dispute in so far as the goods imported/reimported are concerned, the area of dispute is regarding the goods exported. The case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s confirmed the composition which was almost matching with the original composition, but for the fact that the label contained a different composition. This was alleged to be a misdeclaration calling for action and demand of duty for which, SCN dated 31.07.2012 was issued. The appellant appears to have filed detailed reply explaining the facts and the understanding between them and foreign importe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate for the Appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent. The only issue that arises for our consideration is, "whether there was misdeclaration at all, justifying the demand of consequential duty? 4. From the SCN and reply thereto, we find that the dispute was only with regard to the declaration in the label /tag regarding the fabric composition an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ood faith since it was at least after three years thereafter that the SCN came to be issued; the reimport of the consignments was in July 2009. 5. Hence, we do not find any willful misdeclaration to claim the drawback, as alleged by the Revenue and hence, the consequential demand raised in the impugned order cannot sustain since it is an admitted fact that the appellant voluntarily remitted back ....