2016 (11) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Export of goods - benefit of exemption - Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with N/N. 42/01-CE(NT) - appellant did not file the ARE- 1 within a period of 6 months from the date of exports - Held that - the sole basis of the orders passed by the authorities below is that four ARE -1 were not filed with the Revenue within a period of six months, otherwise there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had indeed exported their goods, thus earning the benefit of exemption - ARE-1 produced belated - benefit of export allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file proof of export within the specified time period leading to demand of duty and penalty.
2. Appeal against the order confirming the demand of duty and penalty due to delayed submission of proof of export.

Analysis:
The appellant exported laminated leaf spring under the cover of ARE-1 without payment of duty, as per Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The failure to submit proof of export within 180 days from the date of export led to initiation of proceedings for duty payment. The Joint Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 6,85,204/- and imposed a penalty due to non-filing of ARE-1 within the stipulated time frame.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, emphasizing that although the appellant eventually provided proof of export, the delay in submission breached the law's provisions. The appellant's argument of unawareness regarding the submission requirement was rejected, resulting in the order confirmation.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the primary reason for the lower authorities' decisions was the delayed submission of four ARE-1 forms. However, it was recognized that the appellant had indeed exported the goods, benefiting from exemption. Citing precedents, including Model Buckets and Attachments (P) Ltd., Shreeji Coloured Chem. Industries, and a ruling by the Bombay High Court in Kaizen Plastomould Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, the Tribunal highlighted that the presence of supporting export documents outweighed the delayed submission of ARE-1 forms.

In the present case, as the appellant had eventually produced the ARE-1 forms, albeit belatedly, and there was no dispute regarding the actual export, the Tribunal found no valid reason to uphold the original order. Following the legal principles established by the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.