9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1783 - AT - Central ExciseExport of goods - remittance for the goods exported has not been received and as the export proceeds have not been received, the export cannot be treated as exports - Held that - Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, permits export of the goods under bond/LUT without payment of duty, subject to following the procedure and conditions, as may be prescribed by the notification issued by the Government in this regard. Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19(3) prescribes the conditions and the procedure for this purpose and in this notification, there is no condition that in respect of the goods exported, the export proceeds must be received within any stipulated period. There is no such condition even in the Rule. In view of this, the condition regarding receipt of export proceeds cannot be imposed to demand duty foregone in respect of the goods cleared for export under bond/LUT. The duty on the goods can be demanded only if the goods have not been exported out of India within the stipulated period but there is no such allegation. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether duty can be demanded on goods exported without receipt of export proceeds under bond/LUT? Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the demand for duty on goods exported without the receipt of export proceeds under bond/LUT. The respondents, manufacturers of Repeaters, exported goods without duty payment under bond during 2005-2007. The department issued a show cause notice for duty demand, stating that as the export proceeds were not received, the goods cannot be considered as exported. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that Rule 19 and the related notification did not mandate the receipt of export proceeds. The Revenue appealed this decision. The Departmental Representative argued that since export proceeds were not received, the goods cannot be treated as exported, and duty should be recoverable. On the other hand, the advocate for the appellant contended that Rule 19 and Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) did not impose a condition of receiving export proceeds. Therefore, the absence of such a condition meant no duty could be demanded. The Member (T) considered both arguments and examined Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows goods' export under bond/LUT without duty payment, subject to prescribed conditions in the notification. Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) did not mandate the receipt of export proceeds for duty foregone on goods exported under bond/LUT. The absence of such a condition in the Rule or the notification meant that demanding duty based on non-receipt of export proceeds was not valid. Duty could only be demanded if the goods were not exported within the stipulated period, which was not alleged in this case. Consequently, the Member (T) found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
|
