TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Control Units (ECUs), Body Computer Modules (BCMs) etc. for the Automotive Electronic Division. During the period October 2016 to November 2016, the appellant had exported BCMs falling under CTH8537 1000 to their associated company M/s. Bosch Corporation, Japan. The goods were exported without payment of central excise duty of Rs.21,67,007/- for which a bond was executed and later duty draw back of Rs.3,46,771/- was claimed on the said exports. Due to quality issue of the exported goods, these were returned by their overseas company in the month of April 2017 for repair and accordingly the appellant had filed Bill of Entry No.9188250 dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o in turn, by order dated 23.12.2020 observing that they had a strong case on merit as the appellant was placed in a difficult situation, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. In the de-novo proceeding, the adjudicating authority again rejected their request for re-assessment of allowing the benefit of Notification No.94/1996-Cus. Aggrieved by the de-novo order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that they had reimported the defective BCMs against Bill of Entry No.9188250 dated 05.04.2017 claiming the benefit of Notification No.158/1995-Cus. dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI [20007(209) ELT 321 (SC))]. Further, they referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohit Overseas Vs. CC [20169(335) ELT 18 (Del.)] wherein it is held that exemption notification which was in existence at the time of import of the goods and the same could not be availed, later the claim can be considered under provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on documents which existed at the time of clearance of the imported goods; which has been later followed by other High Courts in the cases of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [20022(3790 ELT 588 (Telangana)] and Travancore Cocotuft Private Limited Vs. CC, Kochi [2024(389) ELT 172 (Ker.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted on 22.06.2015. Later, they claimed benefit of alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 as they fulfilled the conditions of the said notification. We find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority observing that the appellant has a very strong case on merit; however in the impugned order, he has held otherwise. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal involving more or less similar circumstances in the case of SSK Export Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin (supra). This Tribunal observed that benefit of alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus can be claimed even though at the initial stage it was not claimed but they have claimed benefit of Notification No.158/1995-Cus., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal Care Vs. UOI [2007(209) ELT 321 (SC)] that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. 8. This Tribunal in similar circumstances, in the case of IE Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC(Port), Kolkata [2008(224) ELT 71 (Tri. Kol.)] allowed the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus if Notification No.158/95 is not applicable, observed as under:- 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we are of the view that since at the time of importation, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Departmental Authorities were satisfied that the imported goods despite no marks and nu....