9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the strength of a B-1 General Bond. The penalties had been imposed by the Additional Collector exercising the powers under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri A.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants argued their case when the appeal was heard. He referred to the submissions contained in the appeal and stressed the fact that the delay on their part in submission of the proof of export was due to factors beyond their control. The penalty imposed is very harsh. He submitted a copy of an order passed by this Regional Bench itself on a similar matter relating to their sister concern where the penalties imposed by the authorities were first reduced by the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi by 50% and thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credits replenished in their Running Bond account promptly and they had nothing to gain by the delayed submission of the said proof. It was only a technical lapse and pardonable in view of the Supreme Court dictum in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa, reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 159. The Additional Collector failed to appreciate the magnitude of the abnormally prevailing in their establishment and the manpower shortage when he held that they could have filed proof of export since they could export the goods. As the goods were exported in time in all the cases, there was no duty liability and no need for imposing the maximum permissible penalty in different cases. The show cause notice charged them with non-submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may, in any particular case, allow and the claim for rebate together with the proof of due exportation is lodged within the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. Here, goods had been exported without payment of duty under a bond and this is not a case for rebate. However, it is a clear indication that delay in the submission of the proof of export is a condonable lapse. As has been held by the South Regional Bench in the decision quoted supra, the delay could be condoned even for grant of rebate. A fortiori, it stands to reason that penalty which is a matter of discretion is not justified in this case. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellants would be entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
