9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misioner/CE/Cal-II/Adjn/96, dated 20-5-96. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by issue of show cause notice No. 87/SRN/Export/94 dated 27-4-1994 on an allegation that they have contravened the provisions of Rules 13, 52A, 173O and 185 of the C.E. Rules, ibid on the ground that they have exported 18,079.309 KL of SRN at 15 C without furnishing intimation to the Department in proper form and the consignment in question was delivered without supervision by any Central Excise Officer and the assessee-appellants have thus undertaken the export without observing any procedure laid down in the relevant Rules. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority passed the order impugned confirming the duty and imposed penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be provided within the stipulated time from the date of actual loading for redemption of export bond. However, goods weighing a total quantity of 36,053.632 K.L. were loaded to export Vessel by transhipment as per Bill of Lading No. 3/94 on 31-1-1994, without following the provisions of Rule 13, 173O and 185 of the Rules ibid. Rule 13 clearly stipulates that export is to be made in accordance with the procedure set out in the provisions as contained in Chapter IX i.e. the export can be effected after the export is approved by the Commissioner and the export has to be undertaken in the presence and supervision of the Customs. In the instant case, the exporter had requested for permission to effect export of the goods on provisional basis vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there was no storing facility. They themselves have admitted in the narration of facts that similar situation had arisen in 1987 and in order to export the goods, AR-3A application was made which was duly endorsed by the Customs Preventive Officer. Therefore, the plea that the present situation of surplus SRN has arisen in an emergent situation, cannot be countenanced as they themselves had faced with such situation earlier. It is not the case of the appellants that they were not aware of the export formalities. It also cannot be the case of the appellants that the whole quantity of 36,053.632 KL of SRN was produced all of a sudden. It was well within their knowledge that there was lack of storing facility and the goods had to be removed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous columns of the printed form and not the particulars. The appellants have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. T.I. Cycles of India Ltd. reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 497 wherein it was held that goods when meant for export and have actually been exported, in the interest of the export promotion of exports, lack of compliance with Rule 173PP(13) to 18 and 185 condonable under Rule 12 ibid. We find from the said order that it was a case of claim of rebate for the export already made on payment of duty and the party had made out AR- 4A and submitted the same to the Customs Officer before the Export of the goods and the Customs Officer at Bombay had certified the shipment of the cycles under the relative AR-4A. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
