2010 (10) TMI 446 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Export - Non-filing of ARE-1 - Instead of filing the ARE-1 within 24 hours the appellants filed once in a month -issued 33 show-cause notices against 33 AREs and penalties of Rs. 1, 000/- each of show-cause notices - The appellants submits that they were instructed orally by the Department - Hence in the absence of any written order from the jurisdictional officer that is only a technical lapse on the part of the appellants - Hence the penalties are reduced to Rs. 2, 000/- Appeals are disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with filing 'ARE-1' within 24 hours, imposition of penalties under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, appeal against penalties.

Analysis:
1. Non-compliance with Filing 'ARE-1' Within 24 Hours:
The appellants, who are exporters, failed to file 'ARE-1' within 24 hours as required by the procedure for the months of September to October 2008 and April 2009. The Department issued 33 show-cause notices against 33 AREs for this non-compliance, leading to the imposition of penalties of Rs. 1,000 each under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. Imposition of Penalties:
The appellants argued that they were orally instructed by the Department to file 'ARE-1' once a month instead of daily visits, resulting in the monthly filings. They claimed it was a procedural lapse without duty implications and requested the penalties be waived or composite under one show-cause notice. The Department, represented by the learned DR, maintained that the appellants admitted to a technical breach of the Central Excise Rules.

3. Judgment and Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' regular compliance with filing 'ARE-1' on time, except for the specific period in question. As there was no written order from the jurisdictional officer regarding the filing frequency, the Tribunal deemed the non-compliance a technical lapse. Consequently, the penalties were reduced to Rs. 2,000 each in both appeals, considering the circumstances of the case. The appeals were disposed of with this decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in excise matters, the significance of written directives, and the Tribunal's discretion in penalty imposition based on the facts and circumstances of each case.