9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition in interpreting statute similar view was also propounded by the Apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner [ 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] . In fact, it is now a trite law that the procedural infraction of Notifications/circulars etc. are to be condoned if exports have really taken place, and the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirements. The core aspect or fundamental requirement for rebate is its manufacture and subsequent export. As long as this requirement is met, other procedural deviations can be condoned. In the present case also, as stated that, the broad description of goods is mainly tallying with the vital documents namely invoices/ARE-I and Shipping Bills and substantially tallying with other collateral evidences like purchase order Bank Realisation Certificate, etc. There is no doubt about the fact of manufacture and export of the goods. Goods have been exported under Customs Supervision certifying that the goods exported are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 155/7-3-98. However, as per Shipping Bills No. 10180007/10-3-1998, and relevant bill of lading, the goods actually exported were described as 52% Polyester 48% cotton dyed, printed fabrics other than grey. Hence the description of the goods shown on the AR4s and Shipping Bills are totally different. (3) AR4 No. 62/97-98 dt. 9-12-1997, shows that 100% dyed printed polyester fabrics, width 186 cms have been cleared under Invoice No. 115/9-12-1997. However, as per Shipping Bills No. 77159/26-11-1997, and the relevant bill of lading produced in support of the AR4, the goods actually exported were described as 52% polyester 48% cotton dyed printed fabrics. Hence the description of the goods shown on the AR4 and the shipping bill are totally different. (4) AR4 No. 78/97-98 dt. 28-1-98, shows that 100% polyester dyed printed fabrics, width 186 cms have been cleared under Invoice No. 137/28-1-1998. However, as per Shipping Bills No. 202335/23-1-98, and the relevant bill of lading produced in support of the AR4, the goods actually exported were described as 52% Polyester, 48% cotton dyed/printed fabrics. Hence, the description of the goods shown on the AR4 and Shipping bill are totally diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 5,63,109/- under Section 11A of r/w Rule 14A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the applicants under Rule 173Q/209A/14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.6 The appeal filed against the above order was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), without any relief to the applicant. Hence the Revision Application. 3. In the Revision Application the applicant made following main pleadings :- (i) That issue involved in respect of export consignments cleared under four (4) AR4s involves duty amount of Rs. 5,63,109/- is recoverable or otherwise, inasmuch as that the description detailed in column No. 6 of the said AR4s were not matching with description furnished in the relevant shipping bills and bill of lading presented as proof of export in support of said AR4s. (ii) That through oversight the description shown in column No. 6 of the AR4 were recorded as 100% dyed of the polyester fabrics instead of correct description of the said fabrics at 52% polyester and 48% cotton. (iii) That the appellants vide their letter bearing No. 2149 dt. 4-11-1997, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are blended fabrics falling under Heading 55.12 only the composition of which being 52% polyester and 48% cotton. (xii) That price declaration No. 008/98-99 dt. 15-4-1998, filed by M/ss Cotfab Exports, Mumbai also reveals that the goods in question are polyester cotton blended falling under Chapter Heading 55.12. (xiii) That the Range Supdt. Hyderabad Range, conducted detail verifications of the documents and information s furnished in aforesaid letters of the appellants as well as of M/s. Sanghi Textiles Ltd., and being satisfied with the correctness of the facts, forwarded his appropriate classificatory letter bearing No. 1323/98 dt. 2-9-98 by Registered A.D. to the Hon ble Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise (Refund), Meher Bldg., D.S. Lane, Chowpatty, Mumbai-400 007. (xiv) That the appellants had also furnished as required a copy of export orders for verifications as required by the Hon ble adjudicating authority vide appellants letter No. 3366 dt. 5-11-2003. 4. The case was heard on 15-9-2005, and Shri R.K. Sharma, Consultant, appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated contents of their Revision Application. He has also furnished copies of Govt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquires in respect of Export clearance of processed fabrics from the manufacturer M/s. Sanghi Textiles Ltd., through Merchant-exporter M/s. Cotfab Exports, Mumbai vide AR4 Nos. 62/97-98, 78/97-98, 90/97-98 and 3/98-99. In the verification report it is verified that through the AR4s No. mentioned above the applicants have cleared blended M.M.F. of 52.48 (Polyster : Cotton). The relevant para of the letter is extracted below :- In brief the verification results are, the grey fabrics received are blended MMF of 52:48 (Polyester : Cotton) falling under Chapter Heading 55:12 and the resultant processed fabrics cleared for export under bond are blended MMF of 52:48 (Polyester : Cotton) falling under Chapter Heading 55:12. The verification report is relating to processed fabrics cleared under AR4s Nos. detailed below only :- (i) 62/97-98 dated 9-12-97 (ii) 78/97-98 dated 28-1-98 (iii) 90/97-98 dated 7-3-98 (iv) 3/98-99 dated 11-4-98 5.3 Govt., further notes that Part B of each AR4 bears endorsement of Customs to the effect that the impugned consignment was shipped under customs supervision under shipping bill no. mentioned in the endorsement. 5.4 Govt., further notes that in Column-I of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar view was also propounded by the Apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). In fact, it is now a trite law that the procedural infraction of Notifications/circulars etc. are to be condoned if exports have really taken place, and the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirements. The core aspect or fundamental requirement for rebate is its manufacture and subsequent export. As long as this requirement is met, other procedural deviations can be condoned. In the present case also, as stated at Para 6.2 above, the broad description of goods is mainly tallying with the vital documents namely invoices/ARE-I and Shipping Bills and substantially tallying with other collateral evidences like purchase order Bank Realisation Certificate, etc. There is no doubt about the fact of manufacture and export of the goods. Goods have been exported under Customs Supervision certifying that the goods exported are covered by the respective ARI.-1. 7. Govt. thus feels that in view of collateral evidences and fats of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
