9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty demand on goods cleared for export but diverted for obtaining a loan. 2. Limitation period for demanding duty on goods cleared in 1983. 3. Interpretation of Rule 13 and Rule 14A regarding duty liability. 4. Application of proviso (c) to Rule 14A for waiving duty. 5. Penalty imposition under Rule 14A without explicit mention in the show cause notice. Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellants who cleared sheet glass for export under bond but diverted the goods to a bank for obtaining a loan. The department discovered this diversion and initiated proceedings to recover duty on the goods cleared. The Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 6,57,471.92 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000 under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The appellants argued that the duty demand issued in 1988 for goods cleared in 1983 was time-barred. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the export was made under Rule 13, which does not provide for recovery of duty. The duty liability, in this case, was to be pursued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 3. Regarding the interpretation of Rule 13 and Rule 14A, the Tribunal held that the duty demand was justified. The diversion of goods meant for export and their storage in the bank's godown indicated a pre-planned scheme to evade duty. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 14A mandates the payment of duty on goods not exported, and the proviso (c) does not authorize waiving duty in such cases. 4. The appellants contended that the proviso (c) to Rule 14A should exempt them from paying duty as the goods were found stored in the bank's godown. However, the Tribunal ruled that the proviso does not allow for waiving duty when goods cleared for export are diverted. It highlighted that the control over the goods post-clearance lies with the exporter to prove export, and failure to do so does not warrant duty waiver. 5. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Rule 14A without explicit mention in the show cause notice. It held that the notice adequately outlined the charge of pre-planned diversion of duty-free goods, and the penalty was justified considering the awareness of the appellants' Board of Directors regarding the implications under the Central Excise Rules. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, confirming the duty demand and penalty, and rejected the appeal raised by the appellants. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with excise rules and the consequences of diverting goods meant for export to evade duty obligations.
|
