9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 94 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have exported the goods vide ARE-1 No. 1/09-10 dated 16.09.2009 under self sealing procedure at nil rate of duty under Letter of Undertaking issued under F. No. C. Ex/T-II/KDN/UTI/AP/R-1/2009 by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanjur Division, Mumbai-III. The, applicants were given a letter dated 21.03.2010 by the Range Supdt. to furnish proof of export pertaining to the above export since six months period from the date of export has lapsed. The applicants vide their letter dated 25.07.2010 informed that they have exported the said goods under Shippin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp;'condonation of delay' is that the certificate produced by the applicant was not confirmed as genuine by the JNPT authorities. However, the certificate was not confirmed as genuine simply because it was in fact not issued by the JNPT authorities. It was issued by CFS Mulund. The verification ought to have been carried out at CFS Mulund and not at JNPT. 4.3 In the matters of 'condonation of delay' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has favoured liberal approach and has laid down the following guidelines Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and others [1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC)]. 4.4 The applicant submits that delay was caused due to the circumstances where the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentions name of the Central Excise division and Commissionerate. 4.9 The department accepts that the goods were taken into its custody and transferred to the exit port. There is no allegation or positive evidence to show that the goods were taken back from the Customs custody. Once the goods are in custody of the department the department itself is responsible and liable to account for the same. Failure of internal communications between the exit port and the CFS cannot be made a basis to demand duty from the applicant. Merely because the exit port has not sent the transference copy, it cannot be said that the goods were returned to the applicant. 4.10 It has repeatedly been stressed by various authorities that the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 2,52,223/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,52,223/- under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order-in-original. Now applicant has filed this revision application on the grounds stated above. 8. Applicant has contended that they have submitted proof of export in the form of shipping bill, central excise invoice and third copy of ARE-1, that goods were in custody of department who is responsible for accountal of same, that non-receipt of transference copy by CFS Mulund from JNPT cannot be a ground for confirmation of demand. 9. In this regard, Government notes that as per condition3 of bond, applicant exporter is required to submit valid proof of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
