2014 (1) TMI 1211 - HC - Central Excise

Period of limitation for filing export proof under Rule 19 - 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 - There is no time limit provided either in Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or in the Notification dated 26-6-2001 referred to by the revisional authority in the impugned order. Such Notification, which is issued in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 lays down the procedure and condition on which the goods can be so removed. Condition No. (ii) in para-1 of the Notification requires the manufacturer to export such goods within six months from the date of which they were cleared for export from the factory of the production or the warehouse, etc. This condition does not provide for filing of original documents within any time limit. This is not to mean that no time limit is fixed would permit a party to produce such documents at any time howsoever late. In the present case, such documents were seized by the Customs Authority. Therefore, the petitioners could not produce the same before the adjudicating authority and the higher authority, till the documents were released in June-2012 as noted above. Therefore, no fault can be attached on the petitioners. Before the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities also the petitioners had taken a stand that such documents are in the custody of the Customs Officer and therefore, could be produced - The proceedings are placed back before the adjudicating authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting proof of export and duty demand confirmation, appeal dismissal, revision application dismissal, time limit for production of documents.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order rejecting proof of export and confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,59,592. The petitioners removed a consignment for export but faced issues with producing original documents due to seizure by Customs Authorities. Despite providing alternative documents, the authorities proceeded with the duty demand. The appeal reduced the penalty but upheld the duty demand. The revision application was also dismissed, leading to the current petition.

The petitioners argued that the seized documents were now released, allowing them to prove actual export. The adjudicating authority mentioned the provision of Export Promotion copies of the Shipping Bill after payment of dues. The petitioners sought an opportunity to present these documents to address the respondents' objections.

The department opposed this request citing a supposed time limit for document production. However, the court found no specific time limit mentioned in the relevant rules or notifications. The court highlighted that the petitioners were unable to produce the documents earlier due to seizure by Customs Authorities. Therefore, fault cannot be attributed to the petitioners for the delay in presenting the original documents.

Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The petitioners were granted until a specified date to produce additional documents for verification. The adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a fresh order based on the new evidence. The court concluded by disposing of the petition accordingly, allowing the petitioners a fair opportunity to prove their case with the released documents.