2004 (7) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to submit proof of export.
2. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty.
3. Alleged error in filing AR-4 forms and RG-I entries.
4. Time-barred show cause notice.
5. Validity of CA's certificate and other evidence.
6. Responsibility under self-removal procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to Submit Proof of Export:
The appellants, M/s. Tata Telecom Ltd., filed six AR-4 forms dated 31-3-1999 for the export of telephones but failed to submit the proof of export. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging violations of Rules 13 and 14 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and demanded duty along with proposing a penalty.

2. Demand of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
The Deputy Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 13,06,240/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty to Rs. 12,000/-. The appellants argued that since the goods were neither manufactured nor cleared for export, the question of producing proof of export or demanding duty did not arise.

3. Alleged Error in Filing AR-4 Forms and RG-I Entries:
The appellants claimed that the filing of AR-4 forms and entries in the RG-I register were mistakes made in anticipation of an export order that did not materialize. They argued that these entries were made to project higher export sales, but no actual manufacture or removal of goods occurred. They presented a CA's certificate stating that no components were received to manufacture the 30,000 telephones and no corresponding credit entries were found in their bank statements.

4. Time-Barred Show Cause Notice:
The appellants contended that the show cause notice issued on 27-1-2000 was time-barred. However, the Department argued that the notice was issued in terms of Rule 14A and the bond executed by the appellants, making the time bar inapplicable.

5. Validity of CA's Certificate and Other Evidence:
The Department emphasized that the appellants had shown the manufacture and clearance of the goods in their RG-I register, AR-4 forms, and RT-12 returns. They argued that the CA's certificate was not produced before the lower authorities and should not be accepted. The Department maintained that the appellants never approached them to cancel the documents or applications for export, indicating that the goods were indeed manufactured and cleared.

6. Responsibility Under Self-Removal Procedure:
Under the self-removal procedure, the appellants were responsible for maintaining accurate records and submitting correct documents. The Department argued that the appellants' records and statements indicated the manufacture and clearance of the goods. The appellants failed to produce proof of export within the stipulated six months, justifying the duty demand.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments. The appellants' own records and statements indicated the manufacture and clearance of the goods. The CA's certificate was not accepted as it was not presented earlier. The show cause notice was deemed not time-barred. The appeal was rejected, and the duty demand and penalty were upheld.

← Previous Next →