9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 591 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - the goods supplied under ARE-1 certificate were not exported - the parental unit did not mention ARE-1 No.19 and 20 - Held that - As there are contrary views and difference of opinion between the Members, the points of difference of opinion are framed as Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Member (judicial) is correct in holding that duty cannot be demanded and consequently penalty under Rule 25 Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not imposable on the appellant? - matter referred to Larger Bench.
Issues Involved:
1. Clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. 2. Procedural lapses in export documentation. 3. Imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Clandestine Removal of Goods Without Payment of Duty: The appellant was accused of clandestine removal of goods, specifically aluminum fence fittings, without payment of duty. The goods were allegedly cleared to the parental unit for export through ARE-1 forms, which were not mentioned in the shipping bills. The appellant argued that the omission was an inadvertent mistake by the parental unit, and there was no evidence of domestic market clearance under the guise of ARE-1 certificates. The reconciliation statements showed that the goods mentioned in ARE-1 forms were indeed included in the shipping bills. The adjudicating authority did not consider these facts, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence of clandestine clearance. Thus, the demand for duty was set aside by the Member (Judicial). 2. Procedural Lapses in Export Documentation: The appellant failed to submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms with the required certification from Customs Authorities. The photocopies provided did not bear the necessary "Pass for Shipment" order. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the endorsement of ARE-1 forms as they were not filed at the time of shipment. The Commissioner noted irregularities in the calculation charts and discrepancies in the bank certificates of export and realization. The Member (Technical) concluded that in the absence of proper certification, the goods were not proven to be exported, and thus, the demand for duty was justified. 3. Imposition of Penalty Under Central Excise Rules: The appellant was initially penalized under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Member (Judicial) set aside this penalty, citing the inadvertent mistake by the parental unit and lack of evidence for clandestine removal. Instead, a penalty of ?5,000 was imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for procedural lapses. The Member (Technical) disagreed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the certification process and the appellant's failure to prove the export, thereby justifying the original penalty. Separate Judgments: The Members delivered separate judgments due to differing views. The Member (Judicial) concluded that the duty demand and penalty under Rule 25 were not sustainable, while the Member (Technical) upheld the duty demand and penalty, emphasizing the procedural non-compliance and lack of proof of export. Conclusion: The case resulted in a difference of opinion between the Members, leading to the framing of the following point of difference: - Whether the Member (Judicial) was correct in holding that duty cannot be demanded and penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC is not imposable, or the Member (Technical) was correct in dismissing the appeal and sustaining the duty demand and penalty. The appeal was disposed of with these points of difference noted for further consideration.
|
