Page 183 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] MASTERSTOKE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAIPUR-I 405

‘6. Being aggrieved, Revenue has filed the appeal on the ground that
CRCL is fully equipped to test the goods. On the other hand, the appellant
has referred to Circular No. 43/2017-Customs, dated 16-11-2017, clarifying -
that CRCL has shortlisted the items whose samples cannot be tested in their
Laboratories at present and also identified the Lab, where such samples
could be tested. Natural Calcite Powder is one of the specified product
which CRCL Lab is unable to test.’
to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
(Pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 405 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and C.L. Mahar, Member (T)
MASTERSTOKE
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAIPUR-I
Final Order No. C/A/51627/2019-CU(DB), dated 21-11-2019 in Appeal No.
C/53876/2018
Re-imported goods - Goods exported re-imported for repair and re-
conditioning and exported again - True declaration by assessee that repairs
and resetting undertaken which resulted into variation in weight of gold by
3.69 gms and weight of diamond by 0.81 CTS - Concerned officer upon satis-
faction about identity of items allowed re-export of re-imported items - No
additional charge by assessee for re-setting and repair of goods exported after
repairs and reconditioning at same price and sent back to the same buyer - No
violation of Condition No. 3 of S. No. 1 of Notification No. 158/95-Cus., as it
only requires satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner of Customs as regards
identity of goods - If certain small repair or reconditioning of jewellery item
was to be undertaken by manufacturer exporter, a minor variation in weight
bound to occur - Variation of 3.69 gms in a very minor variation - Both import
invoice and export invoice had photograph of all concerned 11 items of jewel-
lery - No justification in confirming duty on items imported which were actu-
ally exported by assessee - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 3, 4, 5]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : C.L. Mahar, Member (T)]. - The brief facts of the matter are
that the appellant is a manufacturer exporter of studded jewellery and primarily
engaged in export of the same. In the present case, the appellant had effected
export of certain jewellery items which were covered under Invoice No. MS-03
dated 28-10-2014 to M/s. Roxalana Sarl, Geneva, Switzerland thereunder total
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  183