2023 (12) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - unregistered unit - clearance exceeded the threshold limit or not - no evidence to indicate actual exports of corrugated boxes in which fruits/vegetables were claimed to have been shipped - HELD THAT - It would appear that the appellant is an unregistered unit and, therefore, had not been following the procedure prescribed under Central Excise Rules,1944 and corresponding notifications in relation to the procedure for export of goods, including packing material through third parties - the duty liability has been fastened on the importer solely on the ground that no evidence existed to indicate actual exports of corrugated boxes in which fruits/vegetables were claimed to have been shipped. The decision of the Tribunal in VADAPALANI PRESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI 2007 (3) TMI 151 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , which had been cited by the appellant before the original authority and neglected to be considered by him, was distinguishable on the ground that the correlation of the clearances from the factory and the exports had been established. The argument of the first appellate authority that the inability to determine, by use of records, that corrugated boxes supplied by the appellant had in fact been part and parcel of the scheme of export consignment, to be specious. It is natural that fruits/vegetables are exported in suitable containers and it is the reality that the containers themselves are not to be found specifically enumerated in the shipping document. Nonetheless, it is established procedure, in terms of central excise law, to permit such containers to be cleared without payment of duty subject to establishing that the goods did ultimately find use by the merchant-exporter - The evidentiary value of such statutory documents, even though not related to central excise law, appears to have been mis-construed by the first appellate authority. It is, therefore, necessary, for the first appellate authority to appreciate the context in which that evidence was admissible and to examine the details thereof before interfering with the order of the original authority. Having failed to do so, it is only appropriate that such exercise be undertaken now. To facilitate that, the impugned order is set aside - matter remanded back to the first appellant authority to ascertain the applicability of the evidence of form H and to explicitly detail reasons, if any, for non-acceptance of information contained therein. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appellant claimed exemption under notification no. 8/2003-CE for clearances of corrugated boxes to merchant exporters. The dispute arose regarding the exclusion of the value of these clearances from the total turnover for the purpose of exemption limit calculation.

Details of the judgment:

1. The appellant contended that they were not required to register under Central Excise Act, 1944 as their clearances were below the threshold. The original authority dropped proceedings but issued a show cause notice for duty recovery, interest, and penalty. The appellant appealed against this decision.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was an unregistered unit and had not followed the prescribed export procedures. The first appellate authority upheld the duty liability based on the lack of evidence showing actual exports of corrugated boxes with fruits/vegetables.

3. The Tribunal considered the argument that the containers used for exporting fruits/vegetables were not specifically listed in shipping documents. The appellant had submitted 'form H' as evidence, which was deemed sufficient based on a previous Tribunal decision. The rejection of this evidence by the first appellate authority was found to be incorrect.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of statutory documents like 'form H' in proving export of goods. The first appellate authority was directed to reassess the evidence and provide detailed reasons for any non-acceptance of the information contained in 'form H'.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority for further examination and clarification.

Separate Judgment:
There was no separate judgment delivered by the judges in this case.