Tribunal sets aside duty demand against National Impex due to lack of export proof

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand confirmation under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against M/s National Impex due to lack of proof of export for goods covered by ARE-1s. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, considering the applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 124/84-C.E. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not properly considered the exemption plea, leading to the decision to allow the appeals by way of remand for further examination without expressing any views on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues involved: Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 124/84-C.E., dated 26-5-1984, confirmation of duty demand u/s 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, consideration of alternative submissions by the adjudicating authority.

Confirmation of duty demand u/s 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal found that duty was confirmed against M/s National Impex for two ARE-1s dated 29-1-2003 due to lack of proof of export for the goods. The appellants claimed the ARE-1s were cancelled and no corresponding entries were made in the export register, indicating non-export. Despite this plea, the adjudicating authority did not accept it, leading to the confirmation of duty under Section 3(1) of the Act.

Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 124/84-C.E., dated 26-5-1984:
The appellants contended that even if the goods were cleared, they should be fully exempted under the mentioned Notification, which exempts goods from duty if produced in a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and not sold in India. The Tribunal, in its prima facie view, believed the goods could be entitled to exemption as per the Notification. However, the adjudicating authority did not consider this plea. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping all issues open for further examination without expressing any views on the case's merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after dispensing with the pre-deposit condition, decided to hear the appeals and found that the alternative submission regarding the exemption under Notification No. 124/84-C.E. was not considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeals by way of remand.

---