2019 (2) TMI 1428 - AT - Central Excise

Permission to clear the goods for further processing - permission to re-export the goods - Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - production of H forms - Circular No. 212/46/96-Cx dated 20.05.1996 - Held that - The appellant have failed to produce H Forms at least in the 10 cases listed at para 10.5 of the impugned order for which there is no defense - In the instant case M/s Core from where the goods have been claimed to have been exported was a registered unit. If they wanted to export they were not entitled to the concession given to small scale units. Circular 212/46/96-CX dated 20.05.1996 and 648/39/2002-CX dated 25.07.2002 are in the shape of relaxation offered to fully exempted Units as a concession. The said procedure is not applicable to Units other than those specified in the said Circular. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty under section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on the export of goods under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Export of Goods under Rule 56B
The appellant, M/s. Mecca Industries, sought permission to clear goods for further processing to M/s. Core Healthcare during 1993-1997. The appellant claimed that the goods were exported from M/s. Core Healthcare's premises, supported by H forms under Central Sales Tax. The appellant argued that the Circulars dated 1996 and 2002 permitted the adoption of H forms for export through a merchant exporter. However, the Tribunal noted that the Circulars applied to fully exempted units and not to others. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where bill of lading and shipping bills were submitted along with Form H, which was not the case here. The Tribunal found that M/s. Core Healthcare, being a registered unit, was not entitled to the concession given to small-scale units for export.

Issue 2: Proof of Export
The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in the documents submitted by the appellant, such as H forms, commercial invoices, and challans. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce H forms for some clearances listed in the order, weakening their claim of export. The order also questioned the correlation between the goods exported and those cleared by the appellant, citing lack of shipping bills or ARE-1 documents to establish actual export. The declaration by M/s. Core Healthcare was deemed insufficient evidence of export due to lack of supporting documentation and ongoing cases against them.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to substantiate the export claim based on the H forms issued by M/s. Core Healthcare. The lack of supporting documents, discrepancies in submissions, and the specific conditions of the Circulars led to the rejection of the appellant's argument. The judgment was pronounced on 01.02.2019 by the Tribunal consisting of Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical).