2012 (4) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns excise duty demand due to export document discrepancy. Evidence supports appellant's position.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the demand for excise duty due to a discrepancy in the description of goods in export documents. The decision ... Duty demand - Discrepancy in description of goods given in the ARE-1 and the shipping bills - Held that:- examination and export sealing has been done at the factory gate by the jurisdictional Excise authorities and the ARE- 1 gives the description of the goods, which are covered by the export consignments. The ARE-1 number and date are indicated in the corresponding shipping bills under which the goods have been exported. The Customs have not examined the goods but based on the Central Excise examination, they have allowed the goods to be exported. The shipping bills contain the endorsement that the goods exported are covered by the ARE-1 number and date indicated therein. Thus, there is a clear correlation and evidence that the goods covered by the ARE-1s have in fact been exported - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Discrepancy in description of goods in export documents.2. Demand of excise duty due to discrepancy.3. Appeal against order-in-appeal No. SB/54/M-IV/10 dated 13-7-2010.4. Correlation between export documents and proof of export.5. Arguments presented by both parties.6. Examination and export sealing at the factory gate.7. Customs endorsement on shipping bills.8. Decision of the Tribunal.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the description of goods in export documents, specifically between the ARE-1 and shipping bills. The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts, exported goods under the DEPB scheme, leading to a variation in descriptions. This resulted in a demand for excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,15,740. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's representative highlighted the correlation between export documents, emphasizing the ARE-1 number and date mentioned in shipping bills to establish proof of export. The appellant argued that the department's claim of insufficient proof of export was legally unsustainable. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' findings.After considering the arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal could be resolved immediately. Upon reviewing the records, it was noted that the examination and export sealing were conducted at the factory gate by Excise authorities, with ARE-1s accurately describing the exported goods. The Tribunal found a clear correlation between ARE-1s and shipping bills, indicating the actual export of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the lower authorities' orders and providing any necessary consequential relief.In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the established correlation between export documents, the endorsement on shipping bills, and the evidence of goods being exported as per the ARE-1s. This analysis led to the dismissal of the excise duty demand and the favorable outcome for the appellant.