9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter – As per Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Suksha International case [1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT] had held that interpretations/restrictions so as to defeat the very purpose of Govt. policy should be avoided - The applicant is already penalized for procedural violations - substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural infractions. - Decided against the Revenue. - 198/377/2010-RA - 612/2012-CX - Dated:- 6-6-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. None, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad against the order-in-appeal No. YDB/265/RGD/2010, dated 31-5-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtain certificates in form CT-1 specified in Annexure-III issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory or warehouse or approved premises or Maritime Commissioner or such officer as may be authorized by the Board in this behalf and on this basis he may procure goods without payment of duty for export by indicating the quantity, value and duty involved therein. 3.2 As per Board s Circular No. 770/3/2004-CX., dated 9-1-2004 the jurisdiction of the Martime Commissioner is in relation to the port, airport, land customs station or post office under the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Central Excise from which the export has taken place. The said Circular states it is evident that jurisdiction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 295 (GOI) wherein it was held that the procedural lapses are to be condoned in the interest of export. However, in the said judgment/revision order it is observed that the lapses on the part of the exporter were only that the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1s were not produced. However in the instant case it is noticed that the basic conditions stipulated in the notification itself has not been fulfilled. It is settled law that for the benefits of an exemption notification to be availed, the conditions stipulated therein have to be fulfilled. The notification being a special privilege enjoyed by the claimant it is his duty and onus to fulfil the conditions laid down in the said notification. The adjudicating authority has er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade and Associations are also informed that they will have the option for executing the bond with the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, where the exports are made from JNPT or any other ports located in district Raigad. The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Raigad Commissionerate who has been conferred the powers of the Maritime Commissioner, Raigad, Central Excise only for exports effected through JNPT, Nava Sheva had exceeded his jurisdiction by accepting the proof of export in respect of the goods exported through New Custom House, Mumbai which falls outside the jurisdiction, simply by imposing penalty of Rs. 5000/- vide impugned order- in-original dated 18-3-2009. 3.9 Further the adjudicating authority has relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam v. Anandalaxmi Mallebles Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (222) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Bang.) it was held that the notification has to be strictly interpreted and that violations of the specific condition of the notification is not minor procedural lapse. 4. A show cause notice under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the respondent M/s. Amira Foods (I) Ltd., who did not file their counter reply till date. 5. Personal hearing in the case was fixed on 19-1-2012 and 19-4-2012. Nobody appeared for personal hearing on any of the date on behalf of the applicant as well as department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of goods, so the substantial requirement of law is complied with. For violation of conditions of Notification, adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- so as to regularize the matter. Hon ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including M/s. Suksha International case [1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.)] had held that interpretations/restrictions so as to defeat the very purpose of Govt. policy should be avoided. Here the bond accepting/proof of export accepting authority was satisfied about the export of goods and therefore accepted the proof of export. The applicant is already penalized for procedural violations. There are catena of judgment wherein it was held that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural infracti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
