Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (6) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 685 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDuty demand - applicant having exported the goods under Rule 19, ought to have executed Bond in place of LUT - discrepancies in details of ER-1 returns and impugned AREs-1 - goods were exported neither by following self-sealing procedure nor by examination of goods under Central Excise supervision - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- From provision contained in Condition No. (i) of the Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), it is clear that option of furnishing letter of undertaking (LUT) was available to manufacturer-exporter only. In this case the applicant is manufacturer of the goods but not the exporter. The goods were exported by the merchant-exporter - However, it is open for the manufacturer to furnish Bond on behalf of the merchant-exporter. In this case, since the goods were exported by the merchant-exporter there is no relaxation from executing Bond and export the goods under LUT. Applicant cleared goods for export without payment of duty but did not execute the bond in prescribed format. He had submitted LUT before sector officer whereas the LUT or bond is to be filed and executed before Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. As such applicant violated this substantial condition of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The scrutiny of monthly ER-I returns as well as copies of ARE-1 reveal various discrepancies. The value and quality of goods cleared from factory did not tally with the value and quality of goods finally exported. The applicant has neither followed the self-sealing procedure while clearing goods for export nor cleared the goods under Central Excise supervision. The goods are first cleared to merchant-exporter who finally claimed to have exported these goods. There was no marks/numbers/Lot Nos. on the goods so the identity of goods cannot be established. In the absence of examination of goods in Central Excise supervision and also not having any marks/numbers/lot numbers on the goods, it cannot be established that goods cleared from factory have actually been exported by the merchant-exporter. As such, export of said goods is not established. The submission of Bond Form was substantial requirement and not a mere procedural requirement. When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory. Applicant has not followed the condition and procedure laid down in Notification. There is no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration, suppression of fact or mala fide on the part of applicants. No facts have been brought by the department that the applicant’s intentionally mis-declared facts to avail undue benefit. As such, penalty imposed on the applicant (1) & (2) i.e. M/s. Gola Steel & Castings Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Kuldeep Goyal, M.D. of said company is set aside. However the other applicant Shri J.L. Arora and Ramesh Chand Sharma were handling the day-to-day affair of company and they cleared goods without payment of duty when no bond or LUT was executed before ACCE/DCCE. They did not even respond to number of summons issued by Central Excise authorities. As such, penal action was rightly taken against them. - However, penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|