9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant could not produce the documents evidencing the fact that the goods have actually been exported. Considering such genuine problem, the matter was remanded by this Tribunal for verification of photocopies of Customs endorsed ARE1s available with the appellant. Original authority has not put any efforts to locate the original export documents available either in the Customs House or in the jurisdictional Central Excise office to ascertain the fact regarding actual exportation of goods, even though specific request was made by the appellant before conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, proper verification of records available in the jurisdictional Customs House/Central Excise office, with the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by the appellant and thereafter for passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/22026/2014-SM - - - Dated:- 17-11-2014 - S K Mohanty, J. For the Appellant : Mr R Muralidhar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr A K Nigam, AR JUDGEMENT Per: S K Mohanty: The appeal along with stay application has been filed before this Tribunal beyond 65 days from the date of expiry of the limitation period as prescribed under the Central Excise statute. According to the appellant, the reasons of delay are owing to the fact that the appellant's company was closed and the business activities were suspended in 2008 and that the lead creditor M/s IFCI sold the land and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of Customs officer are said to be available and 13 cases where Xerox copies of ARE1s carrying a similar endorsements are said to be available. The appellants will be at liberty to produce all such documents before the adjudicating authority and establish their claim. Insofar as ARE1 No. 10/97-08 dated 17/3/1998 is concerned, we find that the appellant claims to have received the goods back in damaged condition and to have given D3 intimation thereof along with police report to the Range Officer. The amount of duty demanded on the goods covered by the said document is ₹ 1,09,070/-. If the goods covered by ARE1 No. 10/97-98 was received back in damaged condition during the period of dispute (April 1996 to June 2008), the fact should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dropped the proceedings for the same. With regard to 14 nos. of export consignments, the said order had confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 13,92,147/-. The reasons assigned therein for confirmation of the duty demand are that in case of 8 cases, though the assessee had submitted the photocopies of Customs endorsed ARE4/ARE1s and Bills of Lading, but the same cannot be relied upon and admitted as proof of export, as the photocopies of documents are prone to manipulation; that with regard to 4 cases, the observation in the said order is that the documents neither contain the endorsement by customs authorities nor supported by the Bills of Lading; that with regard to remaining 2 cases, the duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export, upon verification of other corroborative evidence of actual exportation of goods. 7. The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the appellant failed to produce the proof of export before the adjudicating authority in support of claiming the Central Excise duty exemption. It is the statutory requirement and the Central Excise statute clearly stipulates that the burden of proof of exportation of goods entirely rests with the assessee who claims such duty exemption. However due to unavoidable circumstances, which were explained in the grounds of appeal, the appellant could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he failed to produce before the adjudication proceedings, though the responsibility has been entirely cast on appellant for the purpose. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant should obtain the bank realization certificate in proof of receipt of the sale proceeds and produce the same before the original authority to prove that the goods have actually been exported. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request for verifying the records available in the Custom House/Central Excise office and also the documents to be furnished by the appellant and thereafter for passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 10. In ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
