Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (4) TMI 1312 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Alleged contravention of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Failure to furnish General Bond or Letter of Undertaking for export to SEZ.
3. Confirmation of demand for Central Excise duties and penalty imposition.
4. Claim of ignorance of law and procedural non-compliance.
5. Interpretation of substantive vs. procedural conditions for exemption.
6. Applicability of prior permission requirement for adjustment of refunds.

Issue 1: Alleged contravention of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
The appellant, engaged in industrial fan manufacturing, faced a Show Cause Notice for contravening Rule 19 by exporting goods to SEZ without furnishing a General Bond or Letter of Undertaking. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for Central Excise duties and imposed penalties, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Failure to furnish General Bond or Letter of Undertaking for export to SEZ
The appellant exported goods to Falta SEZ without complying with the procedural requirement of furnishing a General Bond or Letter of Undertaking. Despite submitting copies of ARE-1 to the department, the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice or appear for a hearing, resulting in the demand confirmation and penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Confirmation of demand for Central Excise duties and penalty imposition
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order confirming the demand for Central Excise duties and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant, a small SSI unit, argued that they paid the duty at the insistence of their customers and that their turnover was below the threshold. The Tribunal considered the submissions in light of relevant legal precedents.

Issue 4: Claim of ignorance of law and procedural non-compliance
The appellant contended that being a small-scale undertaking, they were not fully aware of the procedural requirements for export to SEZ. They argued that despite procedural lapses, the goods were duly received in SEZ, and compliance failure should not disqualify them from availing substantive benefits. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument.

Issue 5: Interpretation of substantive vs. procedural conditions for exemption
The Tribunal analyzed the distinction between substantive and procedural conditions for exemption, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in previous cases. The judgment emphasized the need to differentiate between conditions of substance embodying policy considerations and those of a procedural or technical nature, especially concerning exemptions and permissions.

Issue 6: Applicability of prior permission requirement for adjustment of refunds
The Tribunal, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision, set aside the impugned order by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between technical requirements and substantive conditions. It directed the grant of permission for adjustment of refunds, highlighting that the refusal of permission without justification was a technicality that should not disentitle the appellant from availing benefits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates