2015 (10) TMI 1728 - HC - Central Excise

Export of goods - proof of export - Failure to file ARE-2 - Held that - Issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra - Division Benches of this Court have restated the legal position and concluded that failure to file ARE-2 would deprive the petitioner to get benefit under the scheme being a statutory condition. - no reason to take a different view. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by order 2013 (4) TMI 740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , passed in (M/s. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. v/s. Joint Secretary , GOI, Ministry of Finance & Anr.) - no case to interfere with the impugned order of the Government of India, passed in revision application as prayed by the petitioner is made out - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of statutory conditions for exemption from Central Excise Duty.
2. Compliance with export-related notifications and conditions.
3. Validity of penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002.
4. Discrepancies in export documentation and factual compliance.
5. Benefit denial for technical reasons in export-related schemes.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution sought relief from actions pursuant to Order No.617/12-CX dated 7.6.2012, requesting a prohibition on actions against the petitioner company. The petitioner, engaged in Soya Bean Oil and De Oiled Cake manufacturing, faced a demand for duty payment and penalty for alleged contravention of Notification No.43/01 dated 26.06.2001 regarding export conditions and procurement of PP bags without duty payment. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and penalty, which was later overturned in favor of the petitioner by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The respondent department challenged the Order-in-Appeal through a revision application before the Central Government, resulting in the government's decision on 7.6.2012. The government highlighted discrepancies in export documentation, non-compliance with statutory conditions, and failure to export goods using procured duty-free PP bags. The government upheld the demand for duty payment but reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 25, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with statutory conditions for duty exemption.

3. The petitioner argued for the preservation of benefits under export-related schemes despite technical violations, emphasizing the substantive right to inputs used for exported goods. Conversely, the department contended that failure to file required documents like ARE-2 would disqualify the petitioner from scheme benefits, citing previous Division Bench decisions supporting this legal stance.

4. The High Court, after considering previous judgments on similar issues, found no grounds to deviate from established legal positions. Citing precedents from W.P. No.725/2013 and W.P.No.4173/2013, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a case for interference with the government's revision order. The court upheld the government's decision, deeming the writ petition unsubstantiated and devoid of merit.