2025 (11) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or extension of export period in terms of Condition No. 3 (d) (I) (iii) of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 [the Exemption Notification] has been allowed. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 26.08.2022, rejected the request of the respondent for the following reasons:- "5. As such the Notification stipulates that the goods are to be produced or packaged and exported out of India, within a period of one year from the date of import. Further as per para 3 (d) (ii), the goods are to be used in connection with the production or packaging of goods for export out of India or cleared for home consumption within the period of validity or LOP. Thus, the duty is payable on such goods which are yet to be used in manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant. The Appellant has explained his bonafide reason as to they did not approach earlier for seeking extension. Once the imported goods have been used and resultant goods have been duty exported, seeking duty on such inputs for belated exports would defeat the purpose of scheme. The notification empowers the Adjudicating Authority to consider reasons for delay and accordingly grant extension of period of one year. Grant of such extension can be post facto also and no specific provision is needed for such post facto extension. Considering the substantial compliance of condition of export and reason explained for delayed export, the request of Appellant merits consideration and should have been allowed. 6. Having regards to the di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and the resultant goods were exported, seeking duty on such inputs for belated exports would defeat the purpose of the Exemption Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noticed that the Assistant Commissioner had the power to condone the delay and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered it to be a fit case for granting extension. 6. There is no error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Once power was vested with the Assistant Commissioner to grant extension, the application for extension of time could not have been rejected merely for the reason that there was no power to grant such an extension ex-post facto. What weighed with the Commissioner (Appeals) was the fact that substantial compliance had been ....