JAL PAC INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jal Pac India Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 -Cus., dated 16 -12 -96 is available to them.

(2.) We heard Sh. Shita Raman, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sh. D.N. Choudhary, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue.

(3.) The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture polyester metallised film which is exported by them under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme; that they had exported two consignments under Shipping Bill dated 30 -4 -2001; that the consignments were rejected by the foreign buyer and the consignments were returned to them; that consequently, they had re -imported the goods under Bill of Entry dated 18 -9 -2002 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 94/96; that the said Notification exempted the goods from payment of such duty of customs as is in excess of amount of central excise duty leviable at the time of importation subject to the condition that they produce a DEPB licence before the Customs Authorities for debiting the amount equal to the amount of DEPB credit granted at the time of export; that when the Department asked them to submit the DEPB licence they could not produce the same and instead they submitted a licence issued under the new EXIM Policy 2002 -2007. The Revenue has held that the DEPB licence, issued under the new Policy, cannot be presented for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 94/96; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, has rejected their appeal on the sole ground that the re -importation of the goods should take place within one year of exportation or such extended period, not exceeding one more year as may be allowed by the Commissioner of Customs on sufficient cause being shown; that in the present matter the goods were re -imported beyond the period of one year from the date of export of the goods and there is no evidence on record that any extension beyond the period of one year was granted by the Commissioner. The learned Advocate fairly conceded that the issue involved in the present matter stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Asian Electronics Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1176 (T).