9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul evasion of duty on the part of applicant. As such the penalty imposed on the applicant is set aside - Decided partly in favour of appellant. - F.No. 195/14/12-RA - 232-14-cx - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Shri. D. P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant M/s P.M. Enterprises, Mumbai against the order-in-appeal No. YDB(80)M-I/11 dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I with respect to order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I, Division -A. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants had executed a B-I General Bond for ₹ 8 lacs for removal of excisable goods for export without payment of duty. M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted for release of the CT-1 Bond. As there was no response, the Applicant vide its letter dated 16.9.2010 issued a reminder. Vide Show Cause-Cum-Demand Notice dated 13.10.2010, the Deputy Commissioner(Bond) Central Excise, Mumbai-I, alleged that the Applicant has contravened the provisions of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 in-as-much as it failed to submit proof of, export against the CT-1 issued to it within six months from the dated of clearance of goods from the factory of production. The Notice sought recovery of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 14,329/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 alongwith interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 26 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company for on board shipment and the title of the goods was transferred to the foreign buyers. The Applicant had submitted documents such as Shipping Bill, LEO, ARE-1, BRC, etc. in support of its case. In the circumstances there was no reason for denying- the, duty exemption under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. 4.2 The lower authorities failed to appreciate that in the case of removal of excisable goods for export under bond, the place removal is port area. Consequently, the goods which have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident, etc. before shipment, are entitled for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 4.3 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or imposing penalty on the Applicant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 4.6 The Deputy Commissioner erred in imposing penalty under Rule 26 without even passing any order of confiscation. Penalty under rule 26 can be imposed on any person who deals with any excisable, which he knows or has reason to believe liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act or Rules. However, in the instant case, the impugned goods, which were destroyed in the fire, have not been confiscated or held to be liable for confiscation. Hence, there is no reason for imposing penalty on the Applicant under Rule 26. 4.7 The lower authorities failed to appreciate that Section 11AC cannot be invoked in the instant case as there is no fraud, collusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Orders-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the applicant's executed CT I Bond and cleared the goods for export without payment of duty under Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. The goods were removed from factory for export and. carried to CFS for export. However, before physical export of goods, a major fire broke out in the said CFS and the impugned goods were destroyed. The original authority confirmed demand of duty involved in impugned goods with applicable interest and also imposed penalty on applicants of amount equal to duty demanded. The original authority held that the applicant failed to export the goods as per provision of Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. Commissioner (Appeals) uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten thousand rupees but does not exceed one lakh rupees, the provisions of this rule shall have effect as if for the expression Commissioner, the expression Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has been substituted. Provided also that where such duty exceeds one lakh rupees but does not exceed five lakh rupees, the provisions of this rule shall have effect as if for the expression Commissioner , the expression Joint Commissioner of Central Excise or Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has been substituted. On a plain reading of the Rule 21(supra), it is clear that the remission of duty under the said rule is avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
