2001 (3) TMI 124 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Central Excise duty confirmation, failure to furnish proof of exports, recovery of interest, penalty imposition, pre-deposit requirement, endorsement discrepancies, reliance on case laws, imposition of penalty without mens rea.

Central Excise Duty Confirmation and Penalty Imposition:
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming Central Excise duty and imposing penalty for failure to furnish proof of exports. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed penalty under Rule 173Q of the CER, 1944. The Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal due to non-pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalty imposed under Sec. 35F of the CEA, 1944. The applicants argued for waiver of pre-deposit based on endorsement discrepancies and requested consideration on merits, citing various case laws. The Govt. observed overwhelming documentary evidence supporting the export, including endorsements by Central Excise and Customs officers, and decided to condone non-submission of original AR 4, subject to verification by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner.

Imposition of Penalty and Proof of Export:
The applicants contended that penalty imposition without mens rea is unjustified, citing the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa. The Govt. upheld the penalty imposition as the original AR 4 with Customs endorsement was not produced. The Govt. modified the Order-in-Appeal to allow condonation of non-submission of proof of exports based on extensive documentary evidence, subject to verification by the Asstt. Commissioner. The penalty imposition was upheld due to the lack of original AR 4 with Customs endorsement, despite the documentary evidence supporting the export.

Conclusion:
The Govt. modified the Order-in-Appeal to allow condonation of non-submission of proof of exports based on substantial documentary evidence. The penalty imposition was upheld due to the absence of the original AR 4 with Customs endorsement. The applicants' plea for waiver of pre-deposit was considered in light of the endorsement discrepancies and extensive documentary evidence supporting the export.