TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ARE-1s. The Customs Officer posted at the SEZ verified these documents and made necessary endorsements therein. It is not in dispute that, had the appellant paid duty on the above clearances, they could have claimed rebate under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with the relevant provisions of the SEZ Act/Rules. In such a revenue-neutral situation, no intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the appellant. The show-cause notice in this case alleged that the appellant indulged in wilful misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. This allegation is baseless inasmuch as every clearance to the SEZ units was promptly intimated to the Central Excise Range Officer. In the letter of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the penalty imposed by it. On a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, I find that it is not in dispute that the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants were duly received by the SEZ units. The goods were admittedly cleared under proper invoices and ARE-1s and the necessary endorsements were made thereon by the Customs Officer posted at the SEZ Units. The only lapse on the part of the appellant at the time of clearance of the goods was that they neither executed a bond nor mentioned LUT particulars in the ARE-1s. The impugned demand of duty is on this ground. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is unreasonable for the department to demand duty from the appellant on the above basis particularly in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (A.R.) has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I have found a strong case for the appellant. The SEZ units were admittedly entitled to procure their inputs without payment of duty from DTA units like the appellant. It is not in dispute that the inputs supplied by the appellant were duly received by the SEZ units. These supplies were exports for purposes of the SEZ Act. These supplies were effected under cover of proper invoices and ARE-1s. The Customs Officer posted at the SEZ verified these documents and made necessary endorsements therein. It is not in dispute that, had the appellant paid duty on the above clearances, they could have claimed rebat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
