2024-VIL-265-CESTAT-AHM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Re-import of goods – Exemption notification – Denial of benefit – Appellant has been denied benefit of Exemption Notification Nos.45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus on ground that Appellant is not eligible to claim these notifications once Appellant has imported goods by availing benefit of Notification No.158/95-cus – Whether Principal Commissioner is justified in holding that Appellant had no option to switch over to benefits of Notification Nos.45/2017-Cus. and 46/2017-Cus. when Appellant had re-imported goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus. – HELD – It is settled law that where more than one Notifications are applicable for goods attracting levy of any duty or tax, it is the choice and option of assessee to claim benefit of a Notification that suits him – It is also permissible to assessee to claim benefit of any Notification at a later stage notwithstanding fact that assessee claimed benefit of another Notification at initial stage – In view of this settled legal position, Principal Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deny benefit of Notification Nos.45/2017 and 46/2017 only because Appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No.158/95 also by furnishing bonds under such Notification – Notification No.158/95-Cus was the only notification available at time of re-import for most of period – Commissioner may consider benefit of Notification Nos.45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus for the period, when they were available, and if otherwise applicable – Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for re-consideration in terms of above principles

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page