2006 (5) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit requirement in the appeal.
2. Export of goods under incorrect procedure.
3. Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition.

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit requirement in the appeal
The judgment begins with both sides being heard, and after some time, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived. The appeal is then taken up for disposal with the consent of both parties. This decision indicates a procedural aspect where the pre-deposit requirement was waived to proceed with the appeal.

Issue 2: Export of goods under incorrect procedure
The advocate for the appellant presents arguments stating that the impugned goods were indeed exported, supported by certificates issued by Nepal Customs and Shipping Bills certified by Indian Customs Authorities at the Nepal border. It is highlighted that the appellants mistakenly followed the procedure under Notification No. 42/2001 instead of the correct procedure under Notification No. 45/2001 for exporting Indian goods to Nepal. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and verifying the case records, finds the appellant's explanation satisfactory regarding the export of goods, despite following the wrong procedure. Consequently, the duty demand against the appellants is set aside.

Issue 3: Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition
Although the duty demand is set aside due to the satisfactory explanation provided by the appellants regarding the export of goods, a small penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the lower authority for the infraction of rules and procedures is confirmed. The Tribunal allows the appeal on the grounds that the impugned goods were indeed exported, albeit under the wrong procedure, leading to the duty demand being set aside, but upholds the penalty imposed for the procedural error. The stay application is also disposed of in conjunction with the appeal decision.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the waiver of pre-deposit requirement, the export of goods under an incorrect procedure, and the confirmation of a penalty despite setting aside the duty demand. The Tribunal's decision reflects a balanced approach by considering the satisfactory explanation provided by the appellants while upholding the penalty for procedural non-compliance.