Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 636 - AT - Central ExciseRemoval of sugar for export - Appellant was not able to produce the “proof of export “ within the period as prescribed - Recovery alongwith interest and penalty - Benefit of N/N. 42/2001 CE (NT), 26.06.2001 - Star Trading House - HELD THAT:- The goods are allowed clearance from the factory of manufacturer for exports in terms of Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. The Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is pari materia to Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 - In terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, Board has issued notification No 42/2001-CE (NT) prescribing conditions, safeguards and procedure for allowing clearance of goods for export without payment of duty. In the present case as directed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the matter of the exports under taken by the Appellants in respect of the goods cleared from various factories in Maharashtra was taken up by the common adjudicating authority appointed by the Board. The direction of the Bombay High Court is in respect of the consolidation of the proceedings initiated by various show cause notices in respect of the clearances made for export from the factories located in Maharashtra before common adjudicating authority - After considering the documents furnished by the appellant, adjudicating authority has demanded the duty in the cases where he was not satisfied with proof of export - We are also not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that they are not able to co-relate the documents in view of the certain erroneous method adopted by the Customs Authority while endorsing the documents. It is now settled position in law that any person claiming the benefit of an exemption notification is required to fulfill the conditions specified in the notification - It is also a settled position that when law requires something to be done in particular manner then that has to be one in that manner only and all other method of doing are barred. The view taken by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order in respect of Annexure B and C cannot be faulted with. However the view of the adjudicating authority in respect of ARE-1s in Annexure A is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para 16 and needs to be reconsidered - while upholding the demand made by the adjudicating authority in respect of the documents (ARE-1/ AR- 4) in Annexure B and C we set aside the demand confirmed in respect of Annexure A and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority for consideration of the same vis a vis the documents that may be furnished by the appellant. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand.
|