2008 (1) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Demand on ground that goods were not directly exported from their premises but were exported from premises of merchant exporters - number of pieces mentioned in invoices & shipping bills tally - Mentioning of other additional items in shipping bill cannot mean that goods in question were not exported - Once the goods have been exported then mere not mentioning of words export through merchant exporters cannot result in demand of duty as there is no evidence that goods have been cleared to DTA

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on goods not directly exported from the appellant's premises.
2. Interpretation of prescribed procedures for duty exemption.
3. Discrepancies in export documents and goods description.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, a Small Scale Industrial (SSI) Unit, faced duty demand for readymade garments cleared to merchant exporters without payment of duty. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand based on the appellant not directly exporting the goods. The appellant argued that the goods were meant for export, even though not directly exported, and cited procedural relaxations in similar cases. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not about export but about following prescribed procedures under Rule 19 for duty exemption. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that once goods are exported, duty cannot be demanded based on procedural lapses.

Issue 2:
The dispute revolved around the interpretation of prescribed procedures for duty exemption. The appellant contended that the goods were intended for export, even though not directly exported from their premises. They highlighted previous tribunal decisions supporting procedural relaxations in cases of export. The Departmental Representative argued that prescribed procedures were mandatory and discrepancies in export documents were crucial. However, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies did not negate the fact of export, and procedural lapses did not warrant duty demand once goods were exported.

Issue 3:
Concerns were raised regarding discrepancies in export documents and goods description. The Commissioner pointed out discrepancies in the shipping bills, questioning the consistency of goods description. The Tribunal clarified that additional items mentioned in the shipping bills were procured separately by the merchant exporters and did not affect the exported goods' status. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere absence of specific export-related phrases on documents did not justify duty demand, especially when there was no evidence of goods diverted for domestic consumption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the established principle that duty cannot be demanded once goods have been exported, regardless of procedural lapses in the export process.