9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 992 - CGOVT - Central ExciseViolation of conditions of Bond, CT-I certificate - Exporter procured goods without payment of duty for export under bond under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the basis of CT-I certificate No. 1/09-10, dated 5-8-2009 - Held that - Respondent party has not complied with the conditions of bond B-I as well as CT-I certificate which has authorized him to procure said goods without payment of duty. Exporter was under legal obligation to comply with the conditions of bond and CT-I certificate which he failed to comply. Moreover, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigarh has issued CT-I certificate for export of goods through port falling in his jurisdiction since in terms of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 770/3/2004-CX, dated 9-1-2004 and Notification No. 80/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-10-2003 he was Maritime Commissioner in the Nhava Sheva Port. Government therefore is of the view that demand was rightly confirmed by original authority for exporter s failure to comply with the conditions of bond, CT-I certificate and Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended vide Notification No. 80/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-10-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the said grounds of confirmation of demand by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. As such Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the said order. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) for issuing CT-1 certificate - Compliance with procedural requirements for export under bond - Discrepancy in export location and issuance of CT-1 certificate Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) for issuing CT-1 certificate The case involved a dispute where the exporter procured goods for export under bond based on a CT-I certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigarh. The Assistant Commissioner issued the CT-I certificate for export through a specific port, but the goods were exported from a different location. The Government noted that the Assistant Commissioner was the Maritime Commissioner for the Nhava Sheva Port, which was within his jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the officers at the export location were part of the same organization and had approved the export. However, the Government held that the exporter failed to comply with the conditions of the CT-I certificate and the Notification, leading to the confirmation of the demand by the original authority. Issue 2: Compliance with procedural requirements for export under bond The exporter in this case had obtained a CT-I certificate for export under bond, but exported the goods from a location different from the one specified in the certificate. The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) observed that the exporter had contravened the conditions of the CT-I certificate by exporting from a non-designated port. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that the exporter had fulfilled all procedural requirements under Rule 19 and the relevant Notification. However, the Government disagreed, emphasizing the importance of complying with the conditions of the bond and CT-I certificate for duty-free procurement of goods for export. Issue 3: Discrepancy in export location and issuance of CT-1 certificate The key discrepancy in this case was the mismatch between the location specified in the CT-I certificate and the actual export location. The Assistant Commissioner had issued the CT-I certificate for export through a specific port, but the goods were exported from a different location. The Government found that the exporter did not comply with the conditions of the bond and CT-I certificate, leading to the rejection of the proof of export. The Commissioner (Appeals) focused on the procedural deviations and set aside the order, but the Government reinstated the original order, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the specified conditions for duty-free export under bond. In conclusion, the Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of the applicant department due to the exporter's failure to comply with the conditions of the bond, CT-I certificate, and relevant notifications.
|
