2015 (1) TMI 1321 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 - procurement of duty free Acrylic Knitted Panels for use in the manufacture and export of Suede Leather Garments with Acrylic Knitted Panels - denial of benefit on the ground that the respondents had not submitted application in Form ARE-2 in respect of garments exported. Held that - There is no dispute that conditions of exemption notification should be construed strictly - In the present case the condition of exemption notification is that the duty free input has to be used in the exported goods. It is evident that the duty free inputs were used in the manufacture of export goods and duly recorded in the registers and therefore the conditions of notification are substantially complied with by the respondent - appeal rejected - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.

Summary

Issues: Alleged non-filing of Form ARE-2 for exported garments under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.)

Issue 1: Alleged non-filing of Form ARE-2
The case involved the respondents engaged in the manufacture and export of Leather Garments under a specific tariff. The main allegation was that the respondents did not submit Form ARE-2 for exported garments as required by Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The adjudicating authority demanded duty along with interest, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the export of goods but focused on the non-filing of Form ARE-2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that despite the non-filing of the form, the respondents complied with all other requirements under the relevant rules and notification. The Commissioner observed that the absence of Form ARE-2 alone was insufficient to conclude that duty-free inputs were not used in the exported garments. Various evidences such as export orders, garment sketches, test reports, and shipping documents supported the export of goods with duty-free inputs. The Tribunal emphasized that drawing adverse inferences without tangible evidence is not legally sound, citing precedents to support this position.

Issue 2: Compliance with Exemption Notification
The condition of the exemption notification required duty-free inputs to be used in the exported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the duty-free inputs were indeed used in manufacturing export goods, recorded in registers verified by Central Excise officers, thereby substantially complying with the notification conditions.

Analysis: The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, stating that the duty-free inputs were utilized in the manufacture of export goods as per the notification's requirement. The records verified by Central Excise officers further supported this compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the alleged non-filing of Form ARE-2 for exported garments under a specific notification. It emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of exemption conditions, highlighting the substantial compliance by the respondents with the notification requirements. The Tribunal's decision upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the compliance and evidentiary support presented in the case.