1998 (12) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-submission of proof of export within stipulated period, rejection of appeal based on various grounds, acceptance of Form 'H' as proof of export, and satisfaction of Commissioner regarding proof of export.

Non-Submission of Proof of Export Within Stipulated Period:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and export thereof, failed to submit proof of export within the stipulated period as required by CBEC Circular. This led to the issuance of a demand-cum-show cause notice and subsequent confirmation of demand under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, along with imposition of a penalty under Rule 14.

Rejection of Appeal Based on Various Grounds:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellants based on three main points. Firstly, Form 'H' was not submitted within the specified timeframe as per Trade Notice. Secondly, discrepancies were found in the corroborative document submitted by the appellants regarding the exported goods. Thirdly, the details provided in the Shipping Bill did not conclusively prove the export of goods cleared under AR-4 No. 1/95-96.

Acceptance of Form 'H' as Proof of Export:
The appellants argued that Form 'H' should be accepted as proof of export based on Trade Notice No. 112/90. They highlighted the process of issuing 'H' Forms by Sales Tax authorities to merchant-exporters, which are then provided to manufacturers as evidence of export. The appellants presented various documents, including Bills of Entry and Bill of Lading, to support their claim that the goods were indeed exported.

Satisfaction of Commissioner Regarding Proof of Export:
The JDR opposed the appellants' contentions, emphasizing the Commissioner's role in being satisfied with the proof of export as per Rule 14A. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented, such as the 'H' Form, Shipping Bill, and other documents, clearly indicated the export of goods. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had provided sufficient proof of export and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely submission of export documentation, the significance of valid proof of export, and the authority's discretion in relaxing certain requirements based on the overall evidence presented.