Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (11) TMI 312 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty imposition on rejected goods not exported within stipulated period. 2. Acceptance of proof of export by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dispute by the Revenue. Analysis: Issue 1: Duty demand and penalty imposition on rejected goods not exported within stipulated period. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the setting aside of demands and penalty imposition by the OIO. The assessees, a 100% EOU, had cleared Printed Polyester Fabrics for export but failed to produce proof of export within the required six months. The goods were rejected by the importer before shipment, leading to diversion to another EOU. The assessees argued that duty and penalty were not warranted as the rejected goods were diverted to another EOU, supported by various judgments. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty on goods with shortages but set aside demands for non-exported goods. The Revenue contested this decision. Issue 2: Acceptance of proof of export by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dispute by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that all goods were exported to another EOU, with relevant export documents verified by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue's contention that the proof of export should not have been accepted was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the Commissioner (Appeals)' authority to scrutinize evidence, even if within the department's control. As the fact of export was not disputed by the Revenue, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to accept the proof of export and dismissing the Revenue's challenge. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing the lack of merit in the Revenue's appeals and rejecting them. The judgment clarified the Commissioner (Appeals)' authority to accept evidence, particularly when the fact of export was undisputed, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's challenges regarding the proof of export.
|