9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession of re-warehousing certificate, the same was signed by the authorized signatory of the EOU but same was not signed by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of 100% EOU. This was observed in the order-in-original. The appellant subsequently obtained the signature of the jurisdictional officer of the 100% EOU and produced re-warehousing certificate before the Commissioner (Appeals). In such circumstances I do not find any reason for not accepting the re-warehousing certificate by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no case of the Revenue that the goods cleared to 100% EOU were not supplied to 100% EOU and re-warehoused the same in the 100% EOU. The only dispute was non submission of re-warehousing certificate. In my view it is mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oof of export. During the investigations appellant have submitted copies of shipping bills, ARE-1 as proof of export in respect of goods exported out of country and also submitted re-warehousing certificate in respect of deemed export made to M/s. Sun Pharma,100% EOU. They also got UT-1 renewed to cover up the physical export made out of India. In the adjudication, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,66,129/- imposed penalty and interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who dropped the demand pertains to ARE-1 No. 3 dated 21/6/2012 and upheld the demand in respect of remaining clearances, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Ms. Pincky Sharma, Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctional Central excise authority but said deficiency subsequently corrected. Therefore lapse is of technical nature and for this reason demand cannot be confirmed. As regard demand of ₹ 38,732/- related to the export of goods, she submits that there is no dispute about actual export of the goods that the issue is of non submission of proof of export within the time limit of six months. It is her submission that as regard physical export of the goods outside India, the proof of export has been submitted, therefore it is not the case where goods have not been exported but there is only delay in filing the proof of export. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) raised preliminary objection that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U. From the facts of the case, it is observed that against clearance of the goods to 100% EOU i.e. M/s. Sun Pharma, appellant were in the possession of re-warehousing certificate, the same was signed by the authorized signatory of the EOU but same was not signed by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer of 100% EOU. This was observed in the order-in-original. The appellant subsequently obtained the signature of the jurisdictional officer of the 100% EOU and produced re-warehousing certificate before the Commissioner (Appeals). In such circumstances I do not find any reason for not accepting the re-warehousing certificate by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no case of the Revenue that the goods cleared to 100% EOU were not supplied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
