TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number 03/ 91-Cus dated 24.01.1991, and hence were clearance made in DTA - Commissioner admits on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant that these goods were duly exported. Even the annexure to the show cause notices clearly show that all the goods were cleared against the ARE-1 and hence were cleared for exports only. Annexure to each of the show cause notice is an admission of the fact that goods were cleared for export from the premises of appellant. Also neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order state that the proof of export was not submitted by the appellant/ merchant exporter/ third party exporter, in any of the cases. When the goods were cleared for exports and proof of export submitted in each and every case, the demand made treating these goods to be cleared in DTA, is contrary to the provisions of the Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In case of any unit whether an EOU or any DTA unit exporting the goods, the proof of export once submitted establishes the factum of export. Impugned order could not have proceeded to demand the Central Excise Duty contrary to the provisions of the Rule 18. It could have been the case of the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . J-7, MIDC, Tarapur Industrial Area, Boisar, District Palghar, Pin 401 506 under Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 2.1 Appellant is an Export Oriented Unit. It is exporting it goods directly and also through merchant exporters. During course of audit it was noticed that in respect of the exports made through Merchant Exporters certain discrepancies such as on some of the shipping bills in respect of these exported goods, the status of the appellant EOU was not shown, in others, the name of the noticee and its status as an EOU was not mentioned. 2.2 Treating this goods as not export goods for the reasons stated in 2.1, the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 2,61,79,353/-, Rs. 40,26,798/- and Rs. 70,81,775/-, in terms of the proviso to Section 3(1) the Central Excise Act, 1944, was made against the appellant by the three show cause notice bearing numbers (1) VASCN)30-27/ Th-II/ 2011 dated 03.04.2012, (2) V.Adj(SCN)30 1-0/ 2012 dated 06.03.2013 and (3) V.Adj(SCN)30-27/ Th-II/ mu V.Adj(SCN)30-08/ Th-II/ 2014 dated 04.03.2014 on the ground the noticee made third party clearances of goods without payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us dated 24.01.1991 and the decisions of the CESTAT in LT Karle Company, 2007 (2007) ELT 358, PML Industries, 2004 (172) ELT 281, Leela Scottish Lace, 2003 (156) ELT 548, Ikea Trading, 2003 (157) ELT 359. 3.3 Arguing for the revenue learned authorized representative while re-iterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, stated that the Circular 03/91 Customs dated 24.01.1991, clearly stated that the Name of EOU should have been mentioned in the Shipping Bill and other export documents. EPCES Circular No.30 dated 12.09.2006 and the DGFT Policy Circular number 19 (RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 11.09.2006, both of which state that the shipping bills must indicate the name of both the manufacturer and the third party. The use of the word 'must' shows this condition is substantive and not procedural. Department's view is that non mentioning the name of the EOU unit in the Shipping bills is not just technical error or not just procedural lapse. Declaration of the name and status of the EOU in the export documents must be there to claim benefit of export entitlements of the EOU. As per proviso to sub section 1 of Section 3 of Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Party Exports have been allowed in the case of 100% EOUS/ units located in FTZS/ EPZS. The said provisions are applicable for exports made from 01.04.1990. The following guidelines are issued for the information/ guidance of all concerned - (i) 100% EQUs/ or FTZ/ EPZ unit may procure export orders from the Third Party (ii) The name of the Third Party may or may not appear on the export documents such as Invoice, Shipping Bill, Bank Certificate etc. but a condition shall be stipulated thereon that all export benefits including CCS will be admissible to 100% EQU/ FTZ unit/EPZ unit only (as the case may be). (iii) At the time of passing of export orders by third party to 100% EOV or EPZ/ FrZ unit, the third party shall give a disclaimer that they will not claim any export benefits (including export performance for issue of (1) Export Performance Certificate (ii) Export/ Trading/ Star Trading House Certificate, and (ii) Additional/ Special Additional Licences on such exports. (iv) Export orders so procured from third party shall be executed within the parameters of 100% EQU/ EPZ/ FTZ scheme and directly exported from the customs bonded unit of 100% EOU/ EPZ/ FT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. The CBEC, the EPECS and the DGFT have all laid down the condition of the name and status of the EOU to be mentioned in the shipping documents. The satisfaction thereof, therefore, would treat deemed export benefits for the noticee. Coupled therewith is the fact that the noticee made clearances to the third parties under central excise invoices indicating the DTA sales. In the circumstances, the noticee, being an EOU, has committed default deliberately. The penalty under the circumstances, under Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944/ Rule 25(1)(d) would become imposable on the noticee. In the circumstances, I do not impose any penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 upon the noticee. 4.3 From the impugned order it is evident that the goods cleared by the appellant and exported through third party have been considered as clearance made in DTA, for making the demand of the duty for the reason that the documents filed for the export of goods did not indicated the name or the status of the Appellant. In view of the adjudicating authority, for this reason the goods which were cleared for exports did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 581477 12 APOPL1027/07 08/DT.06.08.2007 PHAKT OVERSEAS 27/06.08.07 337714 13 APOPL/032/07, 08/DT.17.09.2007 Simrone Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. 32/17.09.07 32320 14 APOPL/036/07 08/DT.30.09.2007 PHAKT OVERSEAS 36/30.09.07 860627 15 APOPL/037/07 08/DT.30.09.2007 PHAKT OVERSEAS 37/30.09.07 463415 16 APOPL/040/07. 08/DT.07.10.2007 PHAKT OVERSEAS 40/07.10.07 298800 17 APOPL/044/07 08/DT.06.11.2007 PSA INTERNATIONAL 44/06.11.07 9764781 18 APOPL_045/07 08/DT.15.11.2007 BISHOP PHARMA LAB 45/15.11.07 1234770 19 APOPL/046/07 08/DT.19.11.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 203833 35 APOPL/077/07 - 08/DT.31.03.2008 PHAKT OVERSEAS 77/31.03.08 326976 36 APOPL/001/08 09/DT.14.04.2008 BLUE MAP 01/14.04.08 481463 37 APOPL/003/08 09/DT.27.04.2008 BLUE MAP 03/27.04.08. 5333641 38 APOPL/007/08 09/DT.02.05.2008 BISHOP PHARMA 07/02.05.08 1657600 39 APOPL/008/08 09/DT.04.05.2008 PHAKT OVERSEAS 08/04.05.08 713024 40 APOPL/010/08 09/DT.16.05.2008 PHAKT OVERSEAS 10/16.05.08 1040000 41 APOPL/011/08 09/DT.20.05.2008 PHAKT OVERSEAS 11/20.05.08 1841463 42 APOPL/017/08 09/DT.12.06.2008 PHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 APOPL/045/08 09/DT.19.11.2008 INDUS PHARMA 45/19.11.08 210000 58 APOPL/058/08 09/DT.30.12.2008 BDH (T.P.L) 58/30.12.08 2663525 59 APOPL/059/08 09/DT 30.12.2008 BDH (T.P.L) 59/30.12.08 14523421 60 APOPL/068/08 (19/DT.19.02.2009 INDUS PHARMA 68/19.02.09 385000 61 APOPL/003/09 10/DT.26.04.09 MAXHEAL PHARMACEUTIC ALS 3/26.04.09 98500 62 APOPL/011/09 10/DT. 14.06.09 PRAWIL LABORATORIES LTD 12/14.06.09 3696730 63 APOPL/017/09 10/DT.19.07.09 PRAWIL LABORATORIES LID 17/19.07.09 3052410 64 APOPL/029/09 10/DT.30.08.09 INDUS PHARMACEUTIC ALS 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 902016 80 APOPL/090/09 10/DT.21.02.10 MAXHEAL PHARMACEUTIC ALS 93/21.02.10 1177373 81 APOPL/011/10 11/DT.03.06.10 Riddhi Impex 012/10. 11/03.06.2010 2694410 82 APOPL/016/10 11/26.07.2010 BLUE MAP PHARMACHEM 17/10 11/26.07.2010 720201 83 APOPL/024/10 11/21.09.2010 CADILA HEALTHCARE 025/10 11/21.09.2010 28225301 84 APOPL/028/10 11/09.10.2010 INDUS PHARMACEUTIC ALS 29/10 11/09.10.2010 300000 85 APOPL/029/10 11/09.10.2010 INDUS PHARMACEUTIC ALS 030/10 11/09.10.2010 30000 86 APOPL/035/10 11/24.11.2010 PRAWIL LABORATORIES LTD 036/10 11/24.11.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 511373 10 1 JAPOPL/069/10 N 1 /11/11.01.2012 PHARMACEUTIC ALS 069/11 12/11.01.2012 552000 102 APOPL/070/10 Y211/11.01.2012 MAXHEAL LABORATIORIES 070/11 12/11.01.2012 272160 103 APOPL/078/10 T 1311/02.02.2012 CADILA HEALTHCARE 078/11 12/02.02.2012 843100 104 APOPL/085/10 1411/21.02.2012 MAXHEAL LABORATIORIES 085/11 12/21.02.2012 1113907 105 APOPL/087/10 15111/27.02.2012 MAXHEAL PHARMACEUTIC ALS 087/11 12/21.02.2012 545000 106 JAPOPL/088/10 1 16 11/28.02.2012 MAXHEAL LABORATIORIES 088/11. 12/28.02.2012 562800 107 BLUE MAP PHARMACHEM 540644 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 053/12-13 dated 28.09.2012 1500000 14 APOPL/055/12-13 dated 10.10.2012 Maxheal Laboratories 055/12-13 dated 10.10.2012 1613790 15 APOPL/057/12-13 dated 18.10.2012 Maxheal Laboratories 057/12-13 dated 18.10.2012 377140 16 APOPL/058/12-13 dated 21.10.2012 Cadila Healthcare Ltd 058/12-13 dated 21.10.2012 226649 17 APOPL/065/12-13 dated 05.11.2012 Maxheal Laboratories 065/12-13 dated 05.01.2012 72000 18 APOPL/066/12-13 dated 06.11.2012 Maxheal Laboratories 066/12-13 dated 106.11.2012 180000 19 APOPL/071/12-13 dated 27.11.2012 Cadila Healthcare Ltd 071/12-13 dated 27.11.2012 47695 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 APOPL/014/13-14 Dt.26.05.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 014/13-14 Dt.26.05.13 2102800 12 APOPL/016/13-14 Dt.29.05.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 016/13-14 Dt.29.05.13 1078504 13 APOPL/017/13-14 Dt. 30.05.13 Maxheal Laboratories 018/13-14 Dt.30.05.13 529200 14 APOPL/027/13-14 Dt.11.07.13 Blue Map Pharmachem 029/13-14 Dt.11.07.13 1372680 15 APOPL/030/13-14 Dt.21.07.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 032/13-14 Dt. 21.07.13 1652710 16 APOPL/032/13-14 Dt.28.07.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 034/13-14 Dt.28.07.13 1057596 17 APOPL/034/13-14 Dt.08.08.13 Maxheal Pharmaceuticals 036/13-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -14 Dt. 17.12.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 074/13-14 Dt. 17.12.13 3001600 32 APOPL/067/13-14 Dt.25.12.13 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. . 075/13-14 Dt. 25,12,13 319872 33 APOPL/070/13-14 Dt- 31.12.13 Blue Map Pharmachem 078/13-14 Dt- 31.12.13 701250 4.5 Annexure to each of the show cause notice is an admission of the fact that goods were cleared for export from the premises of appellant. Also neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order state that the proof of export was not submitted by the appellant/ merchant exporter/ third party exporter, in any of the cases. When the goods were cleared for exports and proof of export submitted in each and every case, the demand made treating these goods to be cleared in DTA, is contrary to the provisions of the Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In case of any unit whether an EOU or any DTA unit exporting the goods, the proof of export once submitted establishes the factum of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saritha Software Industries Ltd., is premature and uncalled for. We vacate the same and allow this appeal. 4.7 It could have been the case of the revenue that in view of the Circular of 1991 and of 2006, the benefit of export for the purpose of determining NFE, for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the unit should have been denied. However the performance of the EOU s is monitored by the Development Commissioner to whom the return showing the export turnover is furnished by the unit in the manner as prescribed. There is not even a whisper in the show cause notice or in the impugned order, that Development Commissioner has while evaluating the export performance of the unit, has denied the benefit of export in respect of these consignments cleared by the appellant in terms of para 6.10 of the Import Export Policy, 2009-14 read with para 6.18 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2009-14. 4.7.1 We are clear in our view that if the benefit is provided in terms of the statutory provision, the same can be circumscribed/ denied by taking resort to a circular. This view has been held by the in the various decisions referred to by the learned counsel of the appellant, specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
