2007 (4) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of 8% of the value of exported goods as directed by the department.
2. Whether the demand is barred by limitation.
3. Non-execution of bond for goods exported as per Annexure A.
4. Justification of duty demand for goods exported as per Annexure A.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
6. Existence of mala fide intention, suppression of fact, or fraud.
7. Machinery for recovery of demand under erstwhile Rule 57CC.
8. Retrospective application of subsequent amendment to Rule 57CC.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the present appeals is whether the reversal of 8% of the value of the goods exported is required as directed by the department. The appellant argues that Rule 57CC sub-clause (6) exempts them from the provision of sub-clause (1), thus negating the need for the reversal. The Tribunal found that goods in Annexure A were exported without bond execution, while those in Annexure B followed the procedure under Rule 13. The department contested the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding, stating that non-execution of the bond for goods in Annexure A justifies the duty demand.

2. The second contention relates to the limitation period for the demand. The appellant argues that the demand is time-barred as the extended period cannot be invoked. The Tribunal examined the circumstances and found no evidence of mala fide intention, suppression of fact, or fraud by the respondent. It concluded that the demand for goods in Annexure A is not sustainable, as the erstwhile Rule 57CC lacks a mechanism for recovery, and subsequent amendments do not apply retrospectively to the disputed period.

3. The Tribunal ruled out the existence of mala fide intention or fraud on the part of the respondent, as most goods were exported following the bond execution procedure. It emphasized that the demand for goods in Annexure A is not maintainable due to the lack of machinery for recovery under the previous rule. The appeals filed by the revenue were found to lack merit, leading to their rejection, and the CO filed by the respondent was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the appeal comprehensively, providing insights into the Tribunal's decision-making process and legal reasoning.