9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of twelve months . Needless to say that instructions are issued by the Board to bring uniformity in administration of law. The appellant here in has submitted the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the relevant ARE-I. In such circumstances when proof of export is on record the failure if any, to comply with such instruction which is not in accordance with the Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 cannot be held to be procedural lapse. The purpose sought to be achieved by such instruction is to establish the genuineness of export of goods. When the proof of export is on record otherwise, to give undue reliance upon the instruction is not called for. The imposition of penalty is otherwise also unwarranted for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The above Order-in-Original was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.5.2014, which is the impugned order herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that once the goods are exported out of India and proof of export is on record, the role of Bond/LUT is complete. There is no loss of revenue to the Government exchequer. That there was only procedural lapse on the part of appellants to get the letter of undertaking renewed after expiry of every 12 months as stated in the chapter 7 of CBEC s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of Joint Secretary (RA) to Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T renewed periodically. He submitted that the reliance placed by the authorities below on the CBEC s Central Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 is totally misconceived. Secondly, that the imposition of penalty is unsustainable for the sole reason that there was no mention of the same in the show cause notice. 6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. Undisputedly the Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 does not state that the LUT has to be renewed every twelve months. The notification says that the manufacturer-exporter may furnish a letter of undertaking in the form specified in Annexure II in lieu of a bond . In para 3.4 of Chapter 7 of CBEC s Central Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
