2013 (10) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Export or merely a paper movement of goods - Proof of export - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Duty Demand Revenue was of the view that the goods were not exported and ineligible cenvat credit was availed by the appellant on the invoices Held that - The issue involved in the case needs deeper consideration as to whether there was really an export or merely a paper movement - This can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeals - Prima facie, a letter issued by the Office of Superintendent of Central Excise as acceptance the proof of export, was enough evidence to consider that the goods cleared from the appellants factory were exported - The amounts deposited by the main appellant as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeals - Stay Granted.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of Central Excise duty on goods cleared for export but allegedly not exported, eligibility of cenvat credit, penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four stay petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of specified amounts related to Central Excise duty demands, penalties, and interest. The issue revolves around the clearance of goods for export, challenged by the department for alleged non-export and improper cenvat credit utilization. The counsel for one appellant highlighted evidence of export acceptance by the Central Excise office, disputing the demands imposed by the adjudicating authority. Another appellant contested penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 as unjustified.

Upon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for a thorough examination to determine the actual export status of the goods, emphasizing the difference between genuine exports and mere paper movements. Notably, the letter from the Central Excise office accepting proof of export was deemed significant evidence favoring the appellants. Despite the ongoing dispute regarding some duty amounts, one appellant had already paid a substantial sum and contested the remaining demands. The Tribunal found the deposited amounts sufficient for the appeals' consideration, granting the applications for waiver of pre-deposit for the outstanding balances and staying recovery until the appeals' final disposal.

This judgment showcases the importance of substantiating export claims with concrete evidence and highlights the significance of deposit amounts in facilitating the appeal process. It underscores the Tribunal's role in carefully evaluating the evidence presented and ensuring a fair and just resolution of disputes related to duty demands and penalties under relevant customs and excise laws.