9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 461 - AT - Central ExciseRemoval of goods for export without payment of duty - goods cleared for export - goods removed having been subject to further manufacture and finally exported by the manufacturer-exporters, who also filed the required Annexure 45 in terms of said Notification with the Revenue and also executed Bond to safeguard the interest of revenue - Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT), read with Rule 19(2) - Held that - The use of the word any other premises would indicate that the appellant could send even the inputs procured by him to EOU/exporter and avail benefit under Rule 19(2). - the issue is no longer res Integra and is squarely covered by the ruling of Tribunal in the case of Rhoda Textile Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (9) TMI 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . Accordingly the appellant have not violated the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT). The impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of exemption on goods cleared for export by the Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow due to alleged improper removal of goods and non-observance of legal requirements under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Exemption on Goods Cleared for Export The appellant, a manufacturer of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF), appealed against the denial of exemption on goods cleared for export by the Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow. The appellant's goods were sold to Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), who further sold them to manufacturer-exporters for manufacturing and export. The Revenue alleged improper removal of goods and non-observance of legal requirements under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT). The impugned Order-in-Original confirmed a substantial demand and imposed penalties. The appellant contended that they fulfilled all conditions for exemption as the goods were exported after further manufacture. The appellant relied on precedents like Rhoda Textile Pvt. Ltd. and Resil Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. to support their case. Issue 2: Proper Removal of Goods for Export The Tribunal examined the documents and facts presented by the appellant and noted that the goods were removed to the manufacturer-exporter at the instance of RIL, who then sold to buyers for further manufacturing and export. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the goods being subject to further manufacture and final export by the manufacturer-exporters. The Tribunal also observed that the manufacturer-exporters complied with necessary formalities like filing Annexure 45 and executing Bonds to safeguard revenue interests. The Tribunal held that the issue was settled law based on the ruling in Rhoda Textile Private Ltd., and concluded that the appellant did not violate Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT). Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The appellant was deemed entitled to any consequential benefits in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and compliance with legal requirements for claiming exemptions on goods cleared for export, highlighting the significance of following established legal precedents in such matters.
|
