Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 282 - HC - Central ExciseNo export of goods - Clandestine removal - recovery of Central Excise Duty by invoking Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The principle contention of the appellant is that when the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that all the leather uppers manufactured by the appellant and sold to M/s.Metro & Metro had been exported and that there is no finding that these goods were sold in the local market, the appellant should not be made to pay duty on the goods - benefit of Notification Nos.42 of 2001 and 43 of 2001. Held that:- Conditions have been laid in the Notification to ensure that only such goods are exempted from duty which are actually exported. The authorities have to satisfy themselves of the claim for exemption and it is only after such satisfaction by the authorities that the manufacturer or processor can remove the excisable goods to a place outside the factory in order to avail the benefit of exemption from paying excise duty - In the present case, the appellant was not registered under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The appellant has also not informed the department about the clearance of the goods. Complete non-observance of procedure cannot be said to be a mere procedural lapse. The appellant has not fulfilled any of the conditions. Merely stating that they have not paid the Central Excise Duty as they felt that they would be used by M/s.Metro & Metro for export purposes would not be sufficient. It is well settled that the stringency and the mandatory nature of any notification is decided on the basis of the purpose it seeks to achieve. The purpose of Notification No.43 of 2001 dated 26.06.2001 is to ensure that excise duty should not be evaded under the garb of export sales. The appellant has removed the goods without informing the Department. The appellant has also not registered under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules. The contention, even if the appellant is not registered under Rule 9, still the appellant can avail exemption from paying excise duty cannot be accepted. The removal of goods came to light only after the visit of the officers to the factory and perusal of the documents - the authorities were justified in invoking Section 11-A for recovery of excise duty. The order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in confirming the levy of duty by invoking extended period of limitation, does not requires any interference. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|