2002 (1) TMI 661 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of central excise duty on exported goods under bond.
2. Proof of export submission requirements under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Acceptance of photo copies of export documents as proof of export.
4. Failure to produce original documents like Bill of Lading and Shipping Bill.
5. Decision on imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the recovery of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,14,000 on goods exported under bond. The respondents, who manufacture PVC Leather Cloth, were issued a show cause notice for non-submission of proof of export in respect of the goods exported under AR 4 No. 1/96-97. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed a penalty under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. The party appealed against the order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the proof of export submitted by the party was sufficient. The Commissioner accepted the photo copies of AR 4, Shipping Bill, and Bill of Lading as evidence of export, certifying the shipment of goods.

3. In the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner's decision, it was argued that the photo copies of export documents were insufficient proof and that the party did not comply with the submission requirements outlined in Trade Notice No. 42/96-Cus. The Revenue contended that the party failed to produce original documents like Bill of Lading and Shipping Bill, essential for proving export under the Central Excise Rules.

4. The appellate tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that photo copies of export documents could not be accepted as proof of export. Despite opportunities, the party did not submit original documents or appear for a personal hearing before the original authority. The tribunal found that the party did not fulfill its obligation to provide adequate proof of export for the excisable goods cleared without duty payment.

5. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the duty demand but rejected the imposition of a penalty on the respondents. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with the submission requirements for proof of export under the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing the necessity of providing original documents like Bill of Lading and Shipping Bill for verification.