2013 (7) TMI 74 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Export without payment of duty - Procedural lapses by Assessee - penalty under rule 25 - export by merchant exporter - Shown the clearance for Export without payment of duty in their ER-1 return; but they had not submitted triplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1 to Range office within 24 hrs of clearance for export as required under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Held that - Government therefore after considering the submission of the applicant about some business difficulty and lack of cooperation from the side of merchant-exporter, thinks it proper that these documents can be considered and accepted as the same are not questioned by lower authorities with regard to their authenticity. Therefore since the substantial evidences of co-relatability are there, the rebate should not be denied for minor procedural lapses as held by this authority in case of COTFAB Exports 2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA . - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding penalty - Held that - Applicant had not complied with certain procedural requirements including that of not properly submitting copies of impugned ARE-1s well within 24 hrs. of stated clearances. So the applicant is rightly held liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Government therefore upholds the penalty imposed as per impugned Order-in-Original. - Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Central Excise Rules - Submission of proof of export and procedural lapses.

Analysis:
The case involved a Revision Application filed by M/s. Suman Industries against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding a Show Cause Notice for non-submission of proof of export and procedural lapses. The applicant contended that the responsibility to submit proof of export rests with the merchant-exporter, not the manufacturer, and provided documentary evidence of exports. The government reviewed the case records, submissions, and orders-in-original/appeal.

The government noted that the applicant exported goods against different ARE-1 forms, with a demand raised for not following proper procedures and not submitting proof of export. The original authority found proof of export for some ARE-1 forms but not for others, leading to the demand confirmation and penalty imposition. The applicant argued that the responsibility lies with the merchant-exporter, but the government held the manufacturer liable for duty payment until proper confirmation of exemption.

Upon reviewing the export documents submitted by the applicant, the government found co-relatability between various documents, indicating valid exports. Despite procedural lapses, the government accepted the documents as substantial evidence, following the precedent set in a previous case. The applicant was penalized for procedural non-compliance, upholding the penalty imposed in the original order.

In conclusion, the government partially allowed the revision application, modifying the Order-in-Appeal based on the acceptance of the submitted export documents and upholding the penalty for procedural lapses.