Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 33 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDuty demand - failure to produce proof of export - Imposition of penalty - original authority accepted the proof of export, however, imposed penalty on applicants on the ground that the proof of export was submitted late - Habitual offender - Held that:- rebate sanctioning authority shall not reject the rebate claim on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled. Government, therefore, applying the ratio of above said judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the said case, is of the view that the proof of export may be examined on the basis of collateral evidences where original and duplicate ARE-1 form is not submitted. In the light of above, Government proceeds to examine the aspect of proof of export on the basis of collateral evidences available on records or submitted by the applicants. On the basis of collateral evidences, the correlation stands established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export may be treated as completed. As such, demand of duty is not sustainable for aforesaid reasons. However, such verification has been done on the basis of copies of documents submitted by the applicants. Hence, the original authority is required to carry out necessary verification on the basis of original documents either available with applicants or submitted to the department by the applicants as claimed by them by virtue of acknowledgement of receipt of such documents. - The shipping bill Nos. mentioned in excise invoice and export invoice tallies with the shipping marks mentioned in the relevant bill of lading. Further, the quantity/weight, description of excise invoice tallies with quantity/weight and description mentioned in the export invoices. However the amount mentioned in export invoices does not tally exactly with amount mentioned in the relevant remittance documents. The applicants is required to submit such proof of remittance before original authority and if the value mentioned in export documents found tallies with the amounts mentioned in export remittance documents in dollar term then the correlation may be treated as established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export may be treated as completed. Original authority has dropped the demand of duty, however, confirmed the imposition of penalty on the ground of habitual offence of frequent failure to submit original and duplicate copies of ARE-1. Government finds that though the applicants has been extended benefit as regard to proof of export on the basis of collateral evidence in absence of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1, the applicants cannot take recourse of the habit of frequent non-compliance of such documentary requirements. Hence Government finds that for such frequent non-compliance, imposition of penalty of ₹ 10000/- cannot be faulted with and hence, upheld to the extent of such imposition. - Decided parlty in favour of assesse.
|