Manjula Chellur, J.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein is engaged in the execution of works like construction and other civil works. For the work of the appellant, certain articles like Excavators covered under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act were Imported by the appellant. Initially these goods were to be re-exported after use. However, the petitioner/appellant cleared the goods by filing the Bill of Entry for home consumption and paid duty at the rate applicable, in accordance with the Notification No. 27/2002 hat was in existence at the relevant point of time. It is not in dispute that the goods were not re-exported within the time limit stipulated in the Notification 27/2002. Therefore, proceedings came to be initiated for recovery of duty and interest. At that stage, the appellant herein approached the respondents authorities seeking for extension of the benefit of the Notifications No.27/2008, which came to be issued on 01/03/2008. It is also not in dispute that the claim of the appellant was considered only for one Bill of Entry, which cam