9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 492 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Respondent are manufacturer-exporter of Acrylic Yarn and Acrylic Knitwear Garments. The Respondents have been duly recognised as an Export House by the Government of India Ministry of Commerce New Delhi. The Respondents normally operated under duty exemption scheme of the Export Import policy during the period in dispute. For this purpose they obtained advance licences from time to time in terms of duty exemption scheme under EXIM policy. In terms of the advance license scheme they imported raw materials like acrylic fibre dies etc. required for the manufacture of export goods viz. Acrylic knitwear garments. It seems that till date the Respondents appeared to have fulfilled all the export obligations for all the advance licences. Held that - material not bought on record to show buyer to whom exported goods sold and how goods are removed clandestinely from factory. Single document not produced to establish that yarn after manufacture was cleared domestically without any payment. Impugned order setting aside demand sustainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of manufacturer to pay Central Excise duty for goods claimed to be processed by non-existent job workers. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 47/94-C.E. for clandestinely manufactured goods used in exported products. 3. Legitimacy of CESTAT's decision favoring the respondent despite alleged fraud and non-disclosure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Manufacturer to Pay Central Excise Duty: The primary issue was whether the manufacturer, who claimed to have sent Acrylic Fibre to job workers for conversion into Acrylic Yarn, is liable to pay Central Excise duty when it was proven that the job workers were fictitious. The Revenue argued that the manufacturer had themselves manufactured the goods and cleared them without paying duty. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's investigation was limited to the non-existence of job workers and did not provide evidence of the yarn being sold or removed clandestinely. The Tribunal noted that the duty cannot be confirmed based on assumptions and presumptions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. UOI, which stated that findings based on unwarranted assumptions are legally erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents had provided sufficient evidence, such as DEEC Books, Shipping Bills, and Export Obligation Discharge Certificates, to show that the yarn was used in the manufacture of exported garments. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 47/94-C.E.: The second issue revolved around whether the benefits of Notification No. 47/94-C.E. could be extended to the manufacturer on the grounds that the clandestinely manufactured goods were used in the manufacture of exported goods. The Tribunal held that the Respondents had complied with the duty exemption scheme and provided ample evidence of export, fulfilling their export obligations. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue did not present any evidence to contradict the Respondents' claims or to show that the yarn was cleared for home consumption without duty payment. 3. Legitimacy of CESTAT's Decision: The third issue questioned the correctness of CESTAT's decision to favor the Respondents despite allegations of fraud and non-disclosure. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the Respondents had not committed any fraud. The Tribunal noted that the Respondents had provided substantial documentation, including shipping bills, invoices, and bank realization certificates, proving that the final products were exported. The Tribunal found no basis for the Revenue's claims that the yarn was clandestinely cleared without duty payment. Conclusion: After reviewing the Tribunal's findings and the evidence presented, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court found that the Respondents had imported acrylic fibres under the duty exemption scheme and exported the manufactured garments, fulfilling their export obligations. The Revenue failed to provide any evidence of clandestine clearance or home consumption of the yarn. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the Tribunal's order was free from any infirmity. All questions of law raised by the Revenue were decided in favor of the Respondents, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
