9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants cleared the goods for export after complying with the requirements under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E.(N.T.) dated 26.06.2001. A show cause notice dated 19.7.2013 was issued to the appellants alleging that the letter of undertaking (Form UT-1) having been not renewed was not in accordance with the Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 and the Board's Central Excise Manual Supplementary Instructions 2005. The adjudication was concluded by confirming the demand of Rs. 55,642/- as Central Excise duty and ordered recovery of the same along with interest, besides imposing penalty of equal amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary Instructions says that "a letter of undertaking shall be valid for 12 months provided the exporter complies with conditions of the letter of undertaking". That the appellant failed to renew the LUT and therefore did not abide by the procedure contemplated by law, for which reasonable penalty under Rule 27 has been imposed. 5. Contradicting the above submissions, the learned counsel for appellant challenged the imposition of penalty on two grounds. Firstly that there was no procedural lapse committed on the part of the appellant. That there is nothing in the provisions of law including the Notifications No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 requiring the party to get the LUT renewed periodically. He submitted that the reliance placed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 cannot be held to be procedural lapse. The purpose sought to be achieved by such instruction is to establish the genuineness of export of goods. When the proof of export is on record otherwise, to give undue reliance upon the instruction is not called for. The imposition of penalty is otherwise also unwarranted for the reason that the show cause notice does not mention of levy of penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellant that the SCN does not propose to levy penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On such score also the levy of penalty is illegal. It is also submitted by the counsel for appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
