2021 (1) TMI 805 - HC - Central Excise

High Court overturns remand order, upholds Tribunal decision, finding export compliance evidence sufficient.

CEBON APPARELS P. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE

CEBON APPARELS P. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE - TMI Issues Involved:1. Remand of proceedings by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Non-compliance with Notification No.42/2001-CE and its impact on the demand for duty.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Remand of Proceedings by the Appellate Tribunal:The first issue revolves around whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in remanding the proceedings to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order, despite neither party requesting such a remand. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have set aside the order of the Respondent after determining that the demand for duty could not be sustained due to non-compliance with the procedure under Notification No.42/2001-CE.The High Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider new documents obtained under the RTI, which were not available during the original adjudication. However, the High Court found that this remand was unnecessary. The Superintendent had already verified and confirmed the export of goods through shipping bills and BRCs, and the goods were exported under the AIR Drawback Scheme and Focus License. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the remand would be an 'empty formality' and that the Tribunal should have resolved the matter itself.2. Non-Compliance with Notification No.42/2001-CE:The second issue addresses whether the demand for duty could be sustained given the non-compliance with Notification No.42/2001-CE. The Appellate Tribunal had found that the appellant did not follow the procedure prescribed under this notification but was instead following a simplified procedure as per Circular No.705/21/2003-CX dated 8.04.2003, which was applicable to units primarily engaged in exports.The High Court observed that the Tribunal had recognized the appellant's compliance with the simplified procedure and noted that there was no significant dispute regarding the actual export of goods. The Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to verify the new documents submitted by the appellant, but the High Court found that the Superintendent's report already provided sufficient evidence of the exports. Consequently, the High Court held that the demand for excise duty could not be sustained on the basis of non-compliance with Notification No.42/2001-CE when the actual export of goods was established.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the remand order by the Appellate Tribunal and affirming the rest of the Tribunal's order. The Court concluded that the remand was unnecessary given the existing evidence of export compliance, thus resolving both substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant-assessee.