2015 (1) TMI 853 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of central excise duty - non-submission of proof of export before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the appellant failed to produce the proof of export before the adjudicating authority in support of claiming the Central Excise duty exemption. It is the statutory requirement and the Central Excise statute clearly stipulates that the burden of proof of exportation of goods entirely rests with the assessee who claims such duty exemption. However due to unavoidable circumstances, which were explained in the grounds of appeal, the appellant could not produce the documents evidencing the fact that the goods have actually been exported. Considering such genuine problem, the matter was remanded by this Tribunal for verification of photocopies of Customs endorsed ARE1s available with the appellant. Original authority has not put any efforts to locate the original export documents available either in the Customs House or in the jurisdictional Central Excise office to ascertain the fact regarding actual exportation of goods, even though specific request was made by the appellant before conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, proper verification of records available in the jurisdictional Customs House/Central Excise office, with the photocopies of export documents submitted by the appellant is required to be done for ascertaining the factual position regarding exportation of goods. It is made clear that the appellant is also duty bound to produce such substantial evidences in support of the claim of exportation of goods which he failed to produce before the adjudication proceedings, though the responsibility has been entirely cast on appellant for the purpose. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant should obtain the bank realization certificate in proof of receipt of the sale proceeds and produce the same before the original authority to prove that the goods have actually been exported. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request for verifying the records available in the Custom House/Central Excise office and also the documents to be furnished by the appellant and thereafter for passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The appellant should obtain the bank realization certificate in proof of receipt of the sale proceeds and produce the same before the original authority to prove that the goods have actually been exported. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request for verifying the records available in the Custom House/Central Excise office and also the documents to be furnished by the appellant and thereafter for passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Demand of central excise duty for non-submission of proof of export before jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Demand of Central Excise Duty for Non-Submission of Proof of Export

The appeal before the Tribunal was filed beyond the limitation period due to genuine reasons, including the closure of the appellant's company and the Managing Director's health issues. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of justice. The stay application was allowed, waiving the pre-deposit requirement, and the appeal was taken up for final disposal.

The central issue in this case pertained to the demand of central excise duty for non-submission of proof of export before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. This was the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the previous round, the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide documentary evidence of proof of exports and be personally heard. The de novo adjudication was to be completed within a reasonable period due to the dispute dating back to 1996.

The original authority, pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, passed an order confirming duty demand for certain export consignments while dropping proceedings for others. The appellant appealed this order, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant submitted corroborative evidence linking shipping bills, bills of lading, and invoices to demonstrate actual exportation of goods. However, the authorities rejected photocopies of documents as proof of export, citing the potential for manipulation. The appellant cited the closure of the factory and possession by a bank as reasons for not producing original documents, requesting acceptance of photocopies for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof of exportation rested with the appellant, as per statutory requirements. While the appellant failed to produce original export documents, the Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification of records available in Customs House/Central Excise office. The appellant was directed to obtain a bank realization certificate to prove exportation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further verification and a reasoned decision. For certain export consignments where documents were not submitted, the Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay central excise duty. The appeal was dismissed for these cases, allowing the original authority to collect statutory dues.

The Tribunal refrained from expressing opinions on other issues not raised in the appeal or within the scope of the remand order. The stay application and appeal were disposed of accordingly, with the judgment pronounced on 17.11.2014.