9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, 21, Sripuram Colony, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600016, has furnished a bond in Form B-1 (Specific/General) for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) which has been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide F. No. V/15-99/BOND/Andritz/99 (Bond No. 305/MVR/ 2009) on 3-8-2009. The exporter has submitted documents for acceptance of proof of export in respect of the following ARE :- No. ARE-1 No. & date Shipping Bill No. & date Duty amount CT-I No. & date Date of Shipment Date of submission Name of Manufacturer 1 99/09-10, 25-8-2009 7003, 25-8-2009 1,64,800 1/09-10, 3-8-2009 3-9-2009 27-11-2009 Tranter (I) Pvt. Ltd. On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the claimant, it was observed that the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the port, airport, land customs station or post office under the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Central Excise from which export has taken place. The said circular states, it is evident that jurisdiction of the Maritime Commissioner is directly related and restricted to the port of the exportation of the export goods under consideration. Hence, the adjudicating authority therefore rejected the proof of export and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,64,800/- along with interest and appropriated the amount paid of Rs. 1,83,840/- by the exporter on 26-5-2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the exporter observed that there is no dispute about export of the goods. The only irregularity was that instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods under consideration." 3.3 Thus from the above fact, it is clear that the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad is restricted only to the exports taking place from the port in the jurisdiction of Raigad Commissionerate. Therefore the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad was not authorized by the Board for issuing the Certificates in Form CT-1 as envisaged in Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended for exports effected from ICD, Dighi, Pune. 3.4 The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad not being authorized by the Board for issuing the CT-1 certificate for export from ICD, Dighi, Pune the conditions stipulated under the said noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lfilment could not be termed as mere technical lapse. Further in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam v. Anandalaxmi Mallebles Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Bang.) it was held that the notification has to be strictly interpreted and that violations of the specific condition of the notification is not a minor procedural lapse. 4. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. The respondent filed cross-objection vide their written reply dated 12-11-2011 and made following submissions : 4.1 It is true that the respondents had initially obtained the CT-1 certificates from the Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise & Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not as per legal requirement. The officers ought to have returned the documents for processing at Raigad. Instead of adopting this approach, the officers proceeded to process the documents and also allowed the goods to be exported. So the goods were legally exported with the approval of the Governmental officials. The failure at departmental level cannot result in denial of a legal benefit. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 26-6-2013 and 7-8-2013 but nobody attended the hearing on said dates on behalf of the applicant department as well as respondent party. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his jurisdiction since in terms of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 770/3/2004-CX, dated 9-1-2004 and Notification No. 80/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-10-2003 he was Maritime Commissioner in the Nhava Sheva Port. Government therefore is of the view that demand was rightly confirmed by original authority for exporter's failure to comply with the conditions of bond, CT-I certificate and Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended vide Notification No. 80/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-10-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the said grounds of confirmation of demand by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. As such Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the said order. 9. Government t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
