Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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