2013 (8) TMI 224 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Proof of Export - Documents are necessary for availing the benefit of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for the export of goods - Applicant had cleared the goods for export viz. Chlorinated Paraffin wax vide ARE-1 under letter of undertaking (LUT) under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules 2002 Held that - As per provision of the said Rule 19 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 as amended the applicant was required to submit the proof of export to the authority with whom they furnished the LUT within six months from the date of clearance from the factory and in the event of failure they are required to pay the amount of duty due on the said goods along with interest. Further The Board s circular No. 586/23/2001-CX. dated 12-9-2001 further stipulates that the exporter is required to submit Original and Duplicate Copies of ARE-1 duly certified by the customs within six months from the date of clearance. Moreover the instruction contained in chapter 7 of Central Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions mandate the submission of proof of exports in case of export of goods under bond. Government observes that the Original and Duplicate copies of ARE-1 certified by the customs are mandatory and vital documents because it contains the endorsement of the customs to the effect that the goods as per ARE-1 are actually exported. In addition to that as per Part-II Para 13.2 of the said Manual besides original the duplicate copies of ARE-1 some other supporting documents namely self attested photocopy of Bill of Lading and shipping Bills (export promotion copy) are also to be furnished. In absence of these vital documents it cannot be ascertained as to whether the goods cleared under LUT were actually exported or not. In the instant case the applicants have not furnished the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 and shipping Bill - Their contention that the said documents were lying with customs authority is not maintainable inasmuch as they failed to submit any evidence in support of their contention. The ARE-1 was prepared on 12-9-2007 and there is no reason that applicant could not produce the said documents even after the lapse of 5 years. They could have procured the said documents from Customs if they were available with them. Applicant has neither submitted the said documents till date which can prove the export of goods nor made any effort to procure the same if they are with Customs. No documentary evidence is available to suggest that documents are with Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the entire issue in detail in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and Government is in agreement with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) Revision application rejected Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to submit proof of export within stipulated time period.
2. Dispute over submission of necessary export documents.
3. Contention regarding imposition of penalty.
4. Delay in filing revision application.

Issue 1: Failure to submit proof of export within stipulated time period
The case involved the applicant, a company, who failed to submit proof of export within six months from the date of clearance of goods for export. Despite submitting some documents, the applicant did not provide the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 and shipping bills, which are crucial for verifying actual export. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty with interest and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and reduced the penalty.

Issue 2: Dispute over submission of necessary export documents
The applicant argued that the export of goods was not disputed, and therefore, duty should not be demanded. They claimed to have submitted documents like Bill of Lading, Mate receipts, and BRC to the department. However, they admitted to the lapse of not submitting original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 and shipping bills, stating that these documents were with Customs Officers. The government emphasized the importance of these documents as proof of actual export and noted the absence of evidence supporting the claim that the documents were with Customs.

Issue 3: Contention regarding imposition of penalty
The applicant contended that the penalty imposed was unjustified as they did not act in defiance of the law and had not committed any violations under the Central Excise Law. They argued that since the goods were exported, no penalty should be imposed. The government highlighted the requirement of submitting essential export documents within the specified time frame and upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the penalty reduction.

Issue 4: Delay in filing revision application
The revision application was filed with a delay of two days, which the applicant requested to be condoned. The government, considering the reason for the delay genuine, condoned the delay and proceeded to decide the case on its merits.

In conclusion, the government found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the revision application for being devoid of merit.