Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Farida Shoes Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (08 Apr 2024)

Assessee cannot be denied the benefit of alternate notification, when it is eligible at the time of import of the goods

MANU/CC/0113/2024

Customs

In the facts of present case, 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 dated 14th November, 1995 on executing Bond and Bank Guarantee. They requested vide letter to consider their eligibility of Customs Notification No.94/96 as amended as they could not re-export the goods although availed the benefit of Notification No.158/95 dated 14th November, 1995 at the time of import.

The adjudicating authority rejected the request holding that the Appellant, by not complying with the condition of re-exporting the goods within the stipulated period, had failed to comply with the condition of notification and therefore not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.158/95. The request for benefit of Notification No.94/96 was not considered at all. Against this, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 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.

The appellant had intended to re-export the goods after repair of the shoes. However, they could not fulfil this requirement and thereafter sold the goods locally. They then requested the department to extend to them the benefit of Notification No.94/96. The department has not considered the same observing that the appellant has availed drawback and Customs Appeal No. 42615 of 2014 claimed benefit of Notification No.158/95 at the time of import of the goods. On similar set of facts, the Tribunal in the case of Olam Agro India Ltd. Vs. CC had considered the very same issue and held tha,t the appellant would be eligible for alternate beneficial notification. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care vs. UOI held that,assessee cannot be denied the benefit of alternate notification, when it is eligible at the time of import of the goods.

In view of cited decisions, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.94/96. However, it is made clear that the appellant has to pay back the drawback claimed by them along with interest. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : BENEFIT   NOTIFICATION   ELIGIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved