COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. MITTULAL LALAH AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Revenue is directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. C. Cus. 1329/97, dated 4 -11 -97, by which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since the DEEC book had been got delogged after obtaining a no objection from DGFT, the exports have become non -DEEC exports. The ld. Commissioner therefore, held that in such a situation the benefit of Notification No. 97/95 would be admissible and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent/assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the ld. Commissioner in his order -in -appeal has held that since the DEEC book had been got delogged after obtaining a no objection from DGFT, the exports have become non -DEEC exports. The above view was found not correct by the Revenue on the ground that the Notification No. 97/95 specifically prohibits exemption for re -imported goods, earlier exported under DEEC, therefore, the benefit of Notification 97/95 should not be available in this case. Revenue further contended that whether the DEEC book had been delogged or not will make any difference to the fact that goods were exported under DEEC.

(2.) Heard ld. DR, Shri A. Jayachandran, who has reiterated the grounds of appeal.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the respondents ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, submits that the respondents had got the DEEC book delogged after obtaining a no objection from DGFT. In view of this clear direction, the benefit of Notification No. 97/95 has been rightly extended by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that the reference to the subsequent Notification No. 94/96 is not relevant, as it was not in existence at that time of import. He further submitted that the subsequent Notification legalized the interpretation given by the then Commissioner (Appeals) does not mean that the Notification No. 97/95 could not be interpreted the way the Commissioner (Appeals) had done it at that time. This fact is confirmed by the fact that the department did not go in appeal against the order of the then Commissioner (Appeals). In counter, the ld. DR submits that the department did not go in appeal because, it was the case remanded to the lower authority for de novo consideration and as the order in appeal dated 14 -8 -96 was not the final order and there was no need for the department to go in appeal against the order. He further submitted that in any case the lower adjudicating authority has passed a fresh order rejecting the claim of the respondent. In view of the above submissions, ld. DR submits that the order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and the order of the lower authority be restored.