2013 (3) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of adjudged dues, demand of Central Excise duty and education cesses on goods claimed to have been cleared for export, lack of proof of export, imposition of penalty, appeal against Order-in-Original, acceptance of ARE1s as proof of export, de novo adjudication, damaged goods received back, remission of duty, completion of adjudication within a reasonable period.

The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery regarding the adjudged dues. The Tribunal decided to finally dispose of the appeal after dispensing with predeposit. The case involved a show-cause notice demanding Central Excise duty and education cesses on goods claimed to have been cleared for export without proof of export. The original authority confirmed the demand along with a penalty and interest. The party appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals) who directed predeposit of a specific amount. The appellate authority dropped the demand for one export consignment but upheld the rest of the duty demand, while vacating the penalty. The appellant was still aggrieved and appealed to the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that they had documentation for export consignments, with endorsements by Customs officers, which should be accepted as proof of export. The documents were not produced before the authorities but could be presented for de novo adjudication. Specifically, in the case of one consignment received back damaged, the appellant claimed no duty should be demanded. The Additional Commissioner supported the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the claim regarding the damaged goods was already considered and rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals).

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal decided that the original authority should conduct de novo adjudication, allowing the appellant to present documentary evidence of export for all consignments. The appellant was directed to produce all relevant documents for the adjudicating authority to verify their claim. Regarding the consignment received back damaged, the Tribunal noted that the duty demanded should be paid as no remission was claimed, and the goods were not exported. The dispute related to other consignments was remanded for further adjudication, with a directive to complete the process within a reasonable period considering the case dates back to 1996. The stay application was also disposed of.