LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA versus INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1050 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 8371 of 2002) JULY 16, 2008 [ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962; s. 20 and Exemption Notification Nos. 158195-Cus. dated Nov. 14, 1995 and 94196-Cus. dated c Dec. 16, 1996 issued thereunder: Exemption Notifications - Applicability of, on re-impor- tation of goods - Held: In terms of Notification No. 158195- Cus. assessee to undertake re-exporting of the goods within specified time limit else it would be liable to pay the difference D between duty levied at the time of re-import and the duty levi- able at the time of importation of such goods - Assessee ex- ecuted three separate bonds in respect of three bills of entry at the time of re-importing such goods - Assessee can not approbate and re-probate on the ground that benefit under E another notification is also available to him or otherwise - In any event, in the facts and circumstances· of the case, Notifi- cation No. 94196-Cus. Not applicable. 'DEEG Scheme' and 'DEPB Scheme' - Distinction be- tween in the context of applicability of Exemption Notification F Nos. 158195 and 94196 while re-importing the goods. ). Assessee industries exported the goods in question, which were rejected by a foreign buyer. It claimed the ben- efit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. undertaking re-import- G ing of the goods by executing three bonds in connection thereto. However, it could not re-export the goods. The authorities issued Show-Cause Notices for realization of the amount guaranteed by the assessee under the bonds. At that stage, it claimed benefit of another Notification No. ·- .~---. H 1050 COMM. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. INDIAN 1051 ,,. ~ ~ RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD. 94/96-Cus .. dated December 16, 1996. The authorities con- A firmed the demand in respect of two bills of Entry. How- ever, it allowed the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 94/96-Cus. in respect of third bill of Entry as the goods under the said bill were re-exported under the Incentive _.J -! Scheme. The assessee filed an appeal, which was al- B lowed by the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 By Notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14th November, 1995, goods manufactured in India and re-im- c ported in India for repairs or for re-conditioning are ex- empted from whole of the duty of customs leviable on . them as well as additional duty subject to the condition, inter a/ia, that the goods are re-exported within six months of the date of re-importation or any extended period as D f- may be allowed and a bond is executed at the time of im- portation to export within the said period and, in the event of failure to do so, pay an amount equal to the difference between the duty levied at the time of re-import and the duty leviable on such goods at the time of importation. E (Para - 11) [1055 G-H, 1056 A] 1.2 In respect of each of the Bills of Entry, separate bonds were executed by the assessee in~icating Bill of Entry No., description of goods, country of origin, CIF Value, the assessable value and the bond value. (Para - F 11) [1056-C] 2.1 The only Notification which was available to the assessee at the time of import which granted the asses- see the right to import duty free goods was Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Having availed of the benefit of notifica- G tion, the assessee has necessarily to comply with the • --r conditions of the notification. It goes without saying that the assessee cannot approbate and reprobate. (Para - 13) [1056 E-F] H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. 'f . " A Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Collector of Cus- toms, Madras, (1998) 9 SCC 665 - referred to. 2.2 Though, there is no estoppel against the law but having sought for and taken the benefit of the notifica- 8 ti on to import goods without payment of duty, it is not open "';-- -".-...- to the assessee to contend that the conditions in the said l notification need not be fulfilled, be it on the ground that the benefit under another notification is available to him or otherwise. In any event, Notification No. 94/96-Cus. is, c on its own terms, not applicable to the facts of the present case. (Paras~ 13 & 14) [1056-G-H, 1057 A-B] 2.3 The description of the goods claimed in Serial No. 1 (e) under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.refers to the goods exported under DEEC or E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.