2018 (9) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - N/N. 19/2004 dated 6.9.2004 - Export of consignment of Mango juice to Nepal without following the prescribed procedure - Held that - It is not in dispute that the goods have been exported to the Nepal without following the procedure prescribed under the two aforesaid notifications. The contention of the appellant that this may be treated as a procedural lapse as the export has already been affected to Nepalese importer. This is undisputed the fact that the condition of notification has not been complied - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim rejection for non-compliance with export procedure.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appellant's failure to follow the prescribed export procedure while exporting Mango juice to Nepal without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant exported goods to Nepal from February 2014 to October 2014, amounting to ?19,68,035/- in Central Excise duty. The appellant admitted to not following the required procedure but argued that since the export was confirmed by Nepalese Customs and payment was received through banking channels, the violation should be considered procedural, and the substantive benefit should not be denied.

The Advocate for the appellant contended that despite the procedural lapse, the export to Nepal was confirmed, and thus, the benefit should not be denied. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative argued that the failure to comply with the prescribed export procedure should result in the benefit being denied to the appellant. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Departmental Representative emphasized strict adherence to notification conditions, favoring revenue in case of any violation.

After considering the arguments and case records, the Member (Technical) rejected the appeal, stating that the goods were indeed exported without following the prescribed procedure. Despite the export being confirmed, the failure to comply with notification conditions was a significant factor. Referring to the Supreme Court decision, the Member upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with notification conditions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Additionally, the appellate order in another related case was also dismissed, maintaining consistency in the decision.

The judgment, pronounced on August 24, 2018, highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed export procedures and notification conditions, even if the export itself is confirmed. The decision underscored the significance of procedural compliance in availing benefits and emphasized the strict application of notification conditions to avoid any undue advantage to the appellant.