9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 638 - HC - Central ExciseProof of export - assessee has failed to submit original and duplicate copy in respect of ARE-1 No. 1/04-05, Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading, with due endorsement from the Customs Authorities and in respect of ARE-1 No. 2/04-05, did not submit the shipping bill - Whether the Department is bound to accept Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading without verifying its corroborative value for purposes of ascertaining whether the goods in question have been exported - Held that - The material on record would clearly show that the fact that the assessee has produced attested copy of the shipping bill is not in dispute. In view of the Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX., dated 1-5-2000, it is clear that production of attested copy clearly indicating the name of the person signing it would itself be proof of export of goods. It is well settled that Circulars issued by the revenue is binding on the department and therefore the order of the Tribunal holding that production of the attested copy of the shipping bill is sufficient to prove the export of goods in view of Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX., dated 1-5-2000 referred to above is justified - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX regarding proof of export. 2. Acceptance of attested copy of shipping bill as proof of export. 3. Validity of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Issue 1: Interpretation of Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX regarding proof of export: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee based on Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX. The Tribunal held that as per the Circular, the revenue is bound to accept the attested copy of the shipping bill as proof of export. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The High Court, after considering the arguments, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that Circulars issued by the revenue are binding on the department. The High Court concluded that the attested copy of the shipping bill, as per the Circular, is sufficient to prove the export of goods. Issue 2: Acceptance of attested copy of shipping bill as proof of export: The main contention raised by the revenue was that the original shipping bill was not produced to prove the export of goods. They argued that only an attested copy of the shipping bill was submitted, which they deemed insufficient to prove export. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the production of an attested Photostat copy of the shipping bill, as per Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX, is adequate to establish export. The High Court agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the attested copy of the shipping bill, clearly indicating the signer's name, is considered proof of export under the Circular. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the attested copy sufficed as evidence of export. Issue 3: Validity of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal: The High Court addressed the substantial question of law raised in the appeal regarding the acceptance of the shipping bill and Bill of Lading without verifying their corroborative value for ascertaining export. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to accept the attested copy of the shipping bill as proof of export, based on the Circular, was justified. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the Tribunal's order and ruling in favor of the assessee.
|
