2005 (9) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Failure to submit proof of export within prescribed period leading to penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dealt with the issue of the appellants' failure to submit proof of export within the stipulated period, resulting in the imposition of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants did not comply with the statutory requirements of submitting proof of export within 6 months, as mandated by Notification No. 48/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 22-9-94. Consequently, the duty involved on the goods consigned for export was confirmed, and penalties were imposed for the violation of Rule 14A. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified the penalty imposition by citing the provisions of Rule 14A, which prescribed penalties for failure to furnish proof of export within the specified timeframe. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that penalties were warranted as the appellants failed to adhere to the requirements of the said rule. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the record and the impugned order, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to impose penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and concluded that the penalties were rightfully imposed due to the appellants' failure to provide proof of export within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the export proof submission requirements as per Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.