Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1092 - AT - Central ExciseSupply of goods to 100% EOU - failure to produce re-warehousing certificate in time - Held that - As regard the demand of ₹ 38,732/- in respect of export of goods outside India this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Therefore I refrain from passing any order in respect of demand of ₹ 38,732/- on export of goods outside India. I therefore take up the appeal only to the extent whether demand of ₹ 43,810/- on the clearance of the goods to 100% EOU. From the facts of the case, it is observed that against clearance of the goods to 100% EOU i.e. M/s. Sun Pharma, appellant were in the possession of re-warehousing certificate, the same was signed by the authorized signatory of the EOU but same was not signed by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of 100% EOU. This was observed in the order-in-original. The appellant subsequently obtained the signature of the jurisdictional officer of the 100% EOU and produced re-warehousing certificate before the Commissioner (Appeals). In such circumstances I do not find any reason for not accepting the re-warehousing certificate by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no case of the Revenue that the goods cleared to 100% EOU were not supplied to 100% EOU and re-warehoused the same in the 100% EOU. The only dispute was non submission of re-warehousing certificate. In my view it is minor procedural lapse particularly in the case where supply and receipt of goods to 100% EOU is not under dispute. In my considered view goods have been received by 100% EOU and subsequently re-warehousing certificate has been submitted, merely because re-warehousing certificate not submitted in time the demand of duty can not be raised. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Demand raised by the Revenue for clearances made to 100% EOU and export to foreign countries without payment of duty. 2. Failure to produce evidence/documents to substantiate the claim of export. 3. Confirmation of demand, penalty, and interest by the adjudicating authority. 4. Appeal filed before the Commissioner(Appeals) challenging the demand. 5. Dispute regarding submission of proof of export/re-warehousing certificate. 6. Jurisdictional issue related to the demand on clearance of goods made to 100% EOU and export of goods outside India. 7. Lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide on the demand related to export of goods outside India. 8. Acceptance of re-warehousing certificate by the Commissioner(Appeals). 9. Decision on dropping the demand towards goods supplied to 100% EOU. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the demand raised by the Revenue for clearances made to 100% EOU and export to foreign countries without payment of duty. The appellant failed to produce evidence or documents to substantiate their claim of export, leading to the Revenue issuing a show cause notice and raising a demand of Rs. 4,66,129. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, penalty, and interest, which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals). During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant argued that while the goods were cleared for export and deemed export, the lapse was in not submitting proof of export/re-warehousing certificate in time. The consultant acknowledged the delay in filing the necessary documents but emphasized that the goods had indeed been exported. The appellant had submitted shipping bills, ARE-1, and re-warehousing certificates as proof of export, albeit with some technical deficiencies like lack of signatures from the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) raised a jurisdictional objection, dividing the demand into two parts: one related to clearances to 100% EOU and the other to export of goods outside India. The Assistant Commissioner argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on the demand related to export of goods outside India. Regarding the demand on clearances to 100% EOU, it was contended that the demand was rightfully confirmed due to the appellant's failure to submit re-warehousing certificates within the stipulated time period. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the demand related to the export of goods outside India. Therefore, the Tribunal only addressed the demand of Rs. 43,810 on the clearance of goods to 100% EOU. The Tribunal noted that while the re-warehousing certificate was not initially signed by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of 100% EOU, the appellant later obtained the signature and submitted the corrected certificate. The Tribunal deemed this a minor procedural lapse, especially when the supply and receipt of goods to 100% EOU were not in dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal dropped the demand of Rs. 43,810 towards the goods supplied to 100% EOU and refrained from passing any order on the demand related to the export of goods outside India. The appellant was advised to file a revision application before the Reversionary authority of the Government of India for matters concerning the export of goods outside India. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|