2007 (10) TMI 523 - AT - Central Excise

Export - Proof of export - Non-production of AR-4 form - Held that - In any case, the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jamshedpur v. TISCO (Tube Division) 2003 (3) TMI 191 - CEGAT, KOLKATA has held that proof of export of goods by way of invoice, bill of lading and shipping bill is sufficient even in the absence of original copy of the AR-4 form - in the absence of any allegation that the export has actually not taken place - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Non-production of AR-4 form as proof of export

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the non-production of the AR-4 form as proof of export of goods. The appellant had submitted the original AR-4 form before the Maritime Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, who is the proper officer for bond execution. The lower authorities contended that since the original AR-4 form was not produced, the appellant is liable to pay the demand. However, it was highlighted that the original and duplicate copies of the AR-4 form were sent by the Maritime Collector to the range Superintendent, indicating that the goods were indeed exported. The lower authorities failed to acknowledge this communication and doubted the proof of export, despite the Tribunal's precedent that proof of export through other documents like invoices and bills of lading suffices in the absence of the AR-4 form. As there was no evidence suggesting that the export did not occur, the duty confirmation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant documents and circumstances in determining proof of export. It underscores that the absence of the original AR-4 form does not automatically invalidate the export claim, especially when other supporting documents substantiate the export transaction. The decision aligns with established legal principles and precedents, ensuring a fair and just resolution based on the factual record and applicable law.