2017 (12) TMI 1288 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of excise duty - demand on the ground that description of the goods, quantity as mentioned in ARE 1 are not tallying with the shipping bills. Accordingly, proof of export submitted by the appellant was not accepted - Held that - shipping bill was prepared for entire machine namely Dry Mix Mortar Plant therefore it is obvious that the description of the complete machine will not tally with the description of the goods appearing in ARE-1 - Once it was certified on ARE-1 itself by the custom officer regarding physically exports of all the goods from the port, no further documents required as proof of exports. ARE 1 duly certified by the customs officers is sufficient proof of exports - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Ld. Asstt. Commissioner's orders dated 20-12-2007 and 12-7-2007
- Demand of excise duty on goods procured under CT-1 and ARE-1 for exports
- Discrepancy between description, quantity, and weight in ARE-1 and shipping bills

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner's orders dated 20-12-2007 and 12-7-2007, which upheld the demand for excise duty on goods procured under CT-1 and ARE-1 for exports. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 89742090, had procured spare parts under CT-1 certificates and ARE-1 without duty payment for export along with manufactured machines. However, discrepancies in the description, quantity, and weight between the ARE-1 and shipping bills led to the demand for excise duty, as the proof of exports submitted was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appellants to appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the shipping bill's description pertained to the complete exported machine, including the spare parts procured under CT-1, which were not separately listed. The counsel contended that the spare parts were exported along with the machine, supported by the submission of ARE-1 for specific spares to customs authorities during export, who physically verified and certified the goods, signifying the export of procured goods. In contrast, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the discrepancies between the ARE-1 and shipping bills as evidence that duty-free goods covered under ARE-1 were not exported.

Upon careful consideration, the Member(Judicial) found that the rejection of proof of export solely based on discrepancies in the ARE-1 and shipping bill was unjustified. The shipping bill was prepared for the entire machine, while the ARE-1 covered spare parts, explaining the differences in description, quantity, and weight. The Member highlighted that the ARE-1, certified by customs officers during export, served as sufficient proof of export, as it confirmed the physical export of all goods covered. Therefore, the Member concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants.