2012 (11) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty for contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. issued under Rule 19 alleged that Appellant clearing their export consignment under self-sealing and self-certification procedure must have intimated the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers 24 hours in advance Held that - There is no provision that the intimation regarding clearance under self-sealing and self-certification procedure must be sent to the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers in advance - All which is required is that the designated official of the exporter company self-certify on all the copies of the ARE-1, that the goods has been sealed in their presence and send the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 to the Jurisdictional Superintendent within 24 hours of the removal of the goods - order imposing penalty on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of notification issued under Rule 19 is not sustainable - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's failure to intimate the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers 24 hours in advance regarding the clearance of export consignments under self-sealing and self-certification procedure contravenes the provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 19, thereby attracting penal provisions under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Calcium Stearates, exports goods under bond as per Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, with clearances made under ARE-1. The Central Government issued Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) prescribing conditions and procedures for export under bond, allowing sealing of consignments by either Central Excise officers or designated officials under self-sealing and self-certification. The appellant opted for self-sealing and self-certification without prior intimation to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers 24 hours in advance, as required by the department. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under Rule 27 by the Assistant Commissioner, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

Upon review of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) under Rule 19, it was observed that para 2(iii) pertains to dispatch of goods by self-sealing and self-certification, outlining the procedure for exporters. The notification does not mandate advance intimation to Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers but requires the designated official to certify on all copies of the ARE-1 that the goods were sealed in their presence. The original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 must be sent to the Jurisdictional Superintendent within 24 hours of goods removal. Based on this provision, the order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravening the notification was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the penalty and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the appellant's failure to provide advance intimation to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers regarding clearance under self-sealing and self-certification procedure did not contravene the provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 19. The penalty imposed under Rule 27 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing compliance with the prescribed procedure for export under bond without the need for prior intimation to the authorities.