2010 (4) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal- Jurisdiction- Department raised a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal. The show cause notice was issued alleging that the goods have not been exported; the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have held that the goods have not been exported. Held that- the order of the Commissioner definitely relates to goods exported outside India without payment of duty , inasmuch as the goods have been cleared by the appellant from the factory for export and the dispute is about the fact of export of the goods as per the conditions and the terms of bond. Therefore, the objection raised by the department, opinion is valid. When the jurisdiction is not there as per the law, the Commissioner (Appeals) mentioning the CESTAT as appellate forum in the preamble cannot confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in hearing an appeal regarding duty demanded for goods exported to Bangladesh.

In this case, a preliminary objection was raised by the Learned SDR regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal. The appellants had executed a bond with the Excise authorities for exporting goods to Bangladesh but failed to submit proof of export within the stipulated time, resulting in a demand for duty. The department alleged that the goods were not exported, contrary to the appellant's claim. The proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was cited, specifying cases outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including goods exported without payment of duty. The Tribunal considered the facts that the goods were cleared for export but not exported as prescribed by the Department. The order of the Commissioner related to goods exported without payment of duty, and the dispute was centered on the actual export of the goods as per bond conditions. Consequently, the objection raised by the Learned SDR was deemed valid, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction conferred by law, irrespective of the Commissioner's mention of the CESTAT as the appellate forum in the preamble.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with export requirements under bond conditions and the significance of jurisdictional limitations defined by law in appeals related to exported goods without payment of duty. The decision underscores the Tribunal's adherence to legal provisions and the necessity for appellants to substantiate claims with evidence in disputes concerning export obligations to avoid jurisdictional challenges.