9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 213 - AT - Central ExciseWithdrawal of the appeal filed before Tribunal - First proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Assessee to establish that goods which were cleared from the factory were actually exported. - Held that - No appeal shall lie in such cases to the Tribunal Withdrawal of case is allowed from the Tribunal - Assessee at liberty to take up the matter with the appropriate forum, as provided under the Act.
Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty. Analysis: The case involved an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.4,19,317. The Appellant had exported goods under self-declared export procedure via specific shipping bills. Despite submitting documents like shipping bills, export realization certificates, invoices, and packing lists to prove the export, a show cause notice was issued due to non-compliance with the ARE-1 procedure. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order, stating that the regular export procedure was not followed, thus failing to establish actual export. The Appellant then requested withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal citing statutory provisions. The Ld. Advocate representing the Appellant requested the withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal in line with the provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, which restrict appeals in certain cases. The Ld. Advocate's request was supported by the Revenue's representative. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Appellant was granted the freedom to pursue the matter through the appropriate forum as per the provisions of the Act. This judgment primarily addressed the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty concerning the export of goods under self-declared procedure without following the prescribed ARE-1 procedure. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory export procedures to establish the actual export of goods and the implications of non-compliance on excise duty obligations. The Tribunal's ruling allowed the Appellant to explore alternative avenues for addressing the dispute, emphasizing the significance of procedural compliance in excise matters.
|
