2017 (12) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - it was submitted before the Original Authority that the goods covered by the invoices stated in the show cause notice were purchased from outside and exported as such and therefore, such goods did not require following any procedure of Central Excise - Held that - the said SCN did not establish that the goods covered by the invoice numbers stated therein were manufactured by the appellant - Also, Revenue did not discharge its burden to prove that the goods exported through the invoices stated in the said show cause notice were manufactured by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.229-CE/APPL/GZB/2009 dated 17/09/2009
- Allegation of exporting goods without payment of Central Excise duty
- Dispute regarding the manufacturing origin of the exported goods
- Challenge to the imposition of Central Excise duty and penalty

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No.229-CE/APPL/GZB/2009 dated 17/09/2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I at Ghaziabad. The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of Electrical Transformers, who were alleged to have exported goods to Pakistan and Dubai without paying Central Excise duty or furnishing a bond. The show cause notice called for recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to &8377; 4,43,186 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, leading the appellants to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contentions of the appellants, stating that there was no evidence to support the claim that the exported goods were not manufactured by them. The appellant argued that the goods were purchased from outside sources and exported as such, hence not requiring Central Excise procedures. The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision, approached the Tribunal for redressal.

3. During the hearing, the Learned Counsel for the appellant highlighted that the show cause notice did not establish the manufacturing origin of the goods exported, as the relied-upon documents were prepared by the Revenue without any input from the assessee's records. The Counsel emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to demonstrate that the goods in question were manufactured by the appellant. The Learned A.R. for Revenue supported the Order-in-Appeal.

4. After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice failed to prove that the goods exported were manufactured by the appellant. The reliance on documents prepared by Revenue, without citing the information source, and the absence of evidence linking the exported goods to the appellant's manufacturing process led to the decision to set aside the Order-in-Appeal. Consequently, the Order-in-Original was deemed invalid in law.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant consequential relief as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the manufacturing origin of exported goods in cases involving Central Excise duty disputes, emphasizing the burden of proof on the Revenue to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence.