2008 (11) TMI 185 - AT - Central Excise

Proof of Export period of limitation of 6 months to submit proof of export - assessee has failed to fulfil the conditions as stipulated in Rule 14A, as they have failed to produce the proof of export within the stipulated period of 6 months. Merely lodging of claims with A.C. (Refunds) is not sufficient on the part of the assessee towards discharging their export obligations demand and recovery of duty sustained.

Summary

Issues: Failure to produce proof of export within stipulated time period; Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty; Lodging of claims for acceptance of proof of export; Failure to fulfill conditions of Rule 14A; Obligation to prove actual export of goods.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing goods falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, was issued a show cause notice for failing to produce proof of export within the required timeframe for certain consignments exported during a particular year. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed a demand for the unpaid duty amount in relation to consignments where proof of export was not furnished, while withdrawing the demand for consignments with provided proof. A penalty was also imposed in addition to the duty amount. The appellant appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Commissioner (Appeals) considered various appeals filed by the appellant and observed that delays in accepting proof of export claims should not be held against the appellant. In one specific appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the lodged claims for proof of export, resulting in a reduction of the demand and penalty amounts. However, the Revenue was dissatisfied with this decision and filed an appeal.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to meet the conditions specified in Rule 14A by not producing proof of export within the stipulated period. Mere lodging of claims with the A.C. (Refunds) was deemed insufficient to discharge export obligations. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for actual export of goods to be proven satisfactorily to the jurisdictional Commissioner or Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not adequately demonstrate the actual export of goods to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner, leading to the confirmation of the demand. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the acceptance of claims lodged with A.C. (Refunds) as proof of export, emphasizing the appellant's failure to fulfill their obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the favorable portion of the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the original decision of the Deputy Commissioner.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, reinforcing the importance of fulfilling export obligations and providing satisfactory proof of export within the specified timeframe to avoid penalties and demands for unpaid duty amounts.