Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s National Impex And Shri Umar T Chamadia Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Daman

2015 (12) TMI 1350 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Export of goods without payment of duty - procedure not followed - demand was raised for non-furnishing of export documents - Eligibility of the benefit of exemption Notification No 125/84-CE dtd 25.5.1994 - Held that:- Appellants cleared the goods under the cover of ARE-1s without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant failed to furnish the proof of export. The goods were cleared in 2003. The appellant had not furnished any corroborative evidence to establ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

At this stage, the Learned Authorised Representative submits that the penalty was imposed under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rule 2002. The appellant cleared the goods under the Bond without payment of duty and therefore, the appellants has to be pay the duty for failure to furnish the export documents. It is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Rule 25(1). Sub Rule (2) of Rule 25 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any manufacturer removes e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2015 - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri W Christian, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr.P.K. Das, The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s National Impex, the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Dupatta and Scarves. The appellant exported the goods under the cover of six ARE-1s during the period from 13.2.2002 to 17.3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the appellant firm. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that they have not exported the goods in respect of the said two ARE-1s. On 28.4.2003, the Central Excise officers seized the entire records. They requested the Adjudicating Authority to provide the copy of the seized documents to establish the cancellation of the ARE-1s from the record. It is submitted that the demand of duty cannot be confirmed without furnishing the seized records. He relied upon the decision of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts that in the present case, the goods were not allowed to be sold in India by the Development Commissioner. It is his contention that even though goods were clandestinely removed, exemption notification cannot be denied. 3. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deccan Granites Ltd vs CCE, Hyderabad - 2003.151.ELT.582 (Tri.Bang.) which was upheld by the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court as reported in 2015.320.ELT.93 (AP) (CCE., Hyderabad vs Deccan Granites Ltd). He also rel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the records were seized in 2003. He submits that the Tribunal in the remand order had not given any direction to furnish the document. He drew the attention of the Bench to the Tribunal remand order. He further submits that it is a clear case of clandestine removal of the goods as the appellant failed to furnish the proof of export against the two ARE-1s and therefore, the demand of duty and penalty would be sustained. He also submits that the appellant had not taken permission for selling t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

though they have prepared the said two ARE-1s but the same was subsequently cancelled. But, there is no corresponding entries were made by them in their export register. The Learned Advocate drew the attention of the Bench, the letter dtd 28.4.2003 of the Superintendent of Customs. It is seen that the Superintendent of Custom had detained some register for verification. We find from the adjudication order that the matter was fixed for personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority on four o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

004 and 20.2.2007. There is no dispute on the facts that the appellant cleared the goods under cover of ARE-1s without payment of duty. It is not recorded in the export register. The appellant failed to provide any evidence that two ARE-1s were cancelled. The plea of seizure of the documents is without any basis. The case laws and the Board Circular would not be applicable in this case. 6. The next issue is eligibility of the benefit of exemption Notification No 125/84-CE dtd 25.5.1994. The Trib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation is to the effect that the exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to such goods if allowed to be sold in India. In as much as the disputed goods were not allowed to be sold in India, they would, in our prima facie view, be entitled to exemption as provided in the said Notification. However, we find that though the above plea was raised before the adjudicating authority, the same was not considered by him. As such we set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eproduced below: Exemption to goods produced in a hundred percent export oriented undertaking In exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all excisable goods produced, or manufactured in a hundred percent export oriented undertaking from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 OF 1944): Provided that the exemption contained in this notification shall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

establish the goods were exported. In the present case, we find that the appellants cleared the goods under the cover of ARE-1s without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant failed to furnish the proof of export. The goods were cleared in 2003. The appellant had not furnished any corroborative evidence to establish the export of the goods till date. Hence, the demand of duty is justified. The Learned Advocate strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case Deccan Granite Ltd (supra) observed that on the occasion to levy excise duty vis-vis a 100% EOU would arise if only any instances of sale of the product is noticed. It is further observed that there was not a single incident of sale of the product into DTA was pointed out. The expression Goods if allowed to be sold in India in the proviso to the said Notification would cover the goods sold on the basis of permission of the Development Authority. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is justified. 9. We agree that the submission of the Learned Advocate that there is no allegation of diversion of the goods into DTA and therefore imposition of penalty under Section 11AC cannot be sustained. We find that the demand was raised for non-furnishing of export documents. The goods were cleared for export without payment of duty under 19 of the said Rules. As per the provisions of law, if the appellant fails to furnish the export documents they are liable to pay duty. There is no ing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version