2014 (4) TMI 1052 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clearance of goods in domestic area without payment of duty - Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the records placed before him, dropped the duty demand, interest and penalty on the Manager Shri M. Banerjee but confirmed the penalty imposed on JNL to the tune of ₹ 50,000/- for not following the proper procedure and for the lapse committed by them - Held that - On going through the ARE 1, I find that the goods cleared by JNL against this ARE 1 has been exported by the merchant exporter and the said fact has been confirmed by the department itself. This fact has not been appreciated by the Revenue while filing this appeal before me. In the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order quo dropping demand for duty and interest as the fact is on records that the goods have been cleared under the impugned ARE 1 were finally exported. - As 11 consignments have been cleared by JNJ against ARE 1 for not mentioning the place of export therefore, the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on JNL is proper and correct. In the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed on a manufacturer for clearances made in domestic area without payment of duty based on incorrect destination mentioned in ARE 1.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by both the Revenue and a manufacturer against a duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the manufacturer for clearances made in the domestic area without payment of duty. The manufacturer, a cast iron products exporter, cleared goods based on ARE 1 with domestic destinations listed instead of the actual export countries. The Revenue contended that duty should be imposed as the goods were cleared in India, while the manufacturer argued that the goods were ultimately exported by the merchant exporter to countries like Dubai. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the duty demand but upheld a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the manufacturer for procedural lapses. Both parties appealed the decision.

The Revenue argued that the impugned order lacked merit as the goods were cleared with Indian destinations in ARE 1, necessitating duty payment. They highlighted discrepancies between the shipping bill and invoice dates. The Revenue sought confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties on the manufacturer and its manager.

The manufacturer contended that they proved the goods were exported by the merchant exporter, supported by customs verification. They clarified that goods were cleared by pieces, not weight, enabling correlation with invoices for actual export. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly ruled out duty demand due to the goods' export, attributing the penalty to a procedural lapse of not specifying the actual export location in ARE 1.

The judge, after considering arguments and reviewing documents, found that the goods cleared under ARE 1 were indeed exported, as confirmed by customs. The judge criticized the Revenue for overlooking this crucial fact and upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the duty demand and interest. Regarding the penalty on the manufacturer for procedural lapses, the judge deemed it appropriate due to the multiple consignments cleared without mentioning the export location. Consequently, the appeals from both parties were dismissed, affirming the impugned order, and cross objections were also resolved accordingly.