TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f exports in case of export of goods under bond. Government observes that the Original and Duplicate copies of ARE-1 certified by the customs are mandatory and vital documents because it contains the endorsement of the customs to the effect that the goods as per ARE-1 are actually exported. In addition to that as per Part-II Para 13.2 of the said Manual besides original the duplicate copies of ARE-1 some other supporting documents namely self attested photocopy of Bill of Lading and shipping Bills (export promotion copy) are also to be furnished. In absence of these vital documents it cannot be ascertained as to whether the goods cleared under LUT were actually exported or not. In the instant case the applicants have not furnished the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 and shipping Bill - Their contention that the said documents were lying with customs authority is not maintainable inasmuch as they failed to submit any evidence in support of their contention. The ARE-1 was prepared on 12-9-2007 and there is no reason that applicant could not produce the said documents even after the lapse of 5 years. They could have procured the said documents from Customs if they were availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, they did not submit any evidence in support of their contention that the said documents are lying with the Customs Authorities. Further, they did not submit the Triplicate Copy of ARE-1 which was handed over to them. The duplicate copy of ARE-1 has also not been received from Customs Authorities. Therefore, as per Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the document submitted by the applicants were not treated as proof of export. 2.2 In view of the above, it appeared that the unit contravened the provisions of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001 as they failed to submit proof of export. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 5-9-2008 was issued which was adjudicated by the impugned Order-in-Original after due process of law. The adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,59,592/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the demand of duty along with interest, but reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is made by the proper Central Excise Authority . 4.4 As regard the contention of the Commissioner (A) that it cannot be ascertained, at this belated stage, as to whether the goods cleared by the appellant under LUT without payment of duty, have actually been exported, the applicant submit that this contention is not proper and correct as on the basis of the collateral evidences submitted by the applicant, he could have verified about the export of the goods. Further, it is submitted that the contention that the goods exported may be other goods procured from the market is absolutely on the basis of assumption and presumptions and not based on the facts of the case. Even it is not the apprehension of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ankleshwar-III who is the lower authority, in the present case. 4.5 The applicant submit that the Assistant Commissioner had imposed equal penalty under his order and the learned Commissioner (A) had reduced the same to Rs. 50,000/- vide his order-in-appeal. In this context, the applicant submit that the order for imposition of penalty is without any justification under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. The present one is not a case where the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay the amount of duty due on the said goods along with the interest. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty with interest and imposed penalty equal to duty on the applicant as they failed to submit the proper documents as proof of export and contravened provisions of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-2-2001 issued thereunder. Commissioner (A) has upheld the demand of duty with interest but reduced the penalty equal to duty to Rs. 50,000/-. The applicant s contention is that since export of goods is not disputed duty can not be demanded and there is no case for imposition of penalty. They submitted that the documents Bill of Lading, Mate receipt and BRC etc. have been submitted to department and the ARE-1, triplicate copy in question was forwarded to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II Ankleshwar by the Range Superintendent. They admitted that only lapse on their part is non-submission of some documents i.e. original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 and shipping Bills. They further claimed that these documents were lying with the Customs Officer. 8. Government note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
