TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question, had been presented for examination to the jurisdictional central excise officers on 18-2-2011 and examination had been completed on that date itself and as discussed above, this examination was on the basis of permission in this regard given by the concerned Customs House. - the goods in question are covered by the relaxation under Ministry of Commerce Notification No. 37(RE-2010)/2009-2014, dated 24-3-11. - Decided in favor of assessee. - C/368/2011-Cus - C/440/2011(PB) - Dated:- 19-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Acid Casein and on 18-2-2011 filed Shipping Bill No. 2547232 for export of 4 containers of Acid Casein and Shipping Bill No. 2562256 for export of one container of skimmed milk powder. These containers covered by the above mentioned three Shipping Bills were presented for examination in the factory to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers on the same day i.e. 18-2-2011, who examined the goods and after recording the examination report on the reverse of the respective shipping bills, sealed the containers with central excise seal and released the same for export under ARE-I. Out of 7 containers, (six of Acid Casein and one of skimmed milk powder), covered under three Shipping Bills, four containers covered under Shipping Bill No. 254 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 13-6-2011 upheld the order of the Addl. Commissioner. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 1.4 The appellant in the meantime filed Writ Petition No. 5567/2011 before Delhi High Court against the order of the Ministry of Commerce prohibiting the export. The Hon ble High Court on being appraised by the appellant that an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) s order has been filed before the Tribunal, vide order dated 5-8-2011 directed this Tribunal to deal with that appeal and finalise the same within a period of 10 days. Accordingly, this matter was taken up for disposal in terms of the directions of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. 1.5 Heard both the sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s findings that infactory examination of export goods by jurisdictional central excise officers is not examination by Customs is not correct, that for the purpose of export, the goods have to be treated as covered by the relaxation under Ministry of Commerce Notification dated 24-3-2011 and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 6.1 Shri Piyush Kumar also pleaded that earlier in an identical matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27-4-2011 had held that the exported goods can be stuffed in the container at the port of export as well as at the factory premises of the manufacturer and that when the export goods were presented to the jurisdictional central excise officers in the factory for examinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort containers by the jurisdictional central excise officers is done with the permission of the concerned Customs House having jurisdiction over port/ICD from where the goods are to be exported and in terms of this circular, the system of six monthly permission from the Customs House had been done away with and only one time permission for factory stuffing was required. The subsequent circular dated 22-7-2010 prescribed certain safeguards in granting the permission for factory stuffing. From these circulars, it is clear that in factory examination, stuffing and sealing of the containers by the jurisdictional central excise is done with the permission of the concerned Customs House where the shipping bill for export would be filed and thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination had been completed on that date itself and as discussed above, this examination was on the basis of permission in this regard given by the concerned Customs House. The central excise officers who had examined the goods are also notified as customs officers as per Notification No. 31/97-Customs, dated 7-9-2007. Therefore, the goods, in question, have to be treated as having been handed over to the Customs for examination and export on 18-2-2011 only and just because by the time the containers reached the Customs port, from where the same were to be exported and were presented to the Customs for let export order, the next day i.e. 19-2-2011 had started, the export cannot be disallowed. In our view, the goods in question are covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
