Export proof and incomplete ARE-1 certification: demand set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

A demand of excise duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained where the assessee produced shipping bills, ARE-1 forms, bank realization certificates and other export documents showing actual export, and the adjudicating authority failed to examine that evidence properly. Incomplete certification in Part-B of the ARE-1 forms, by itself, was insufficient to reject the export claim when the documentary particulars tallied. The impugned order was therefore set aside for fresh adjudication, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after examining all evidence and granting a hearing in accordance with law and natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of excise duty, interest and penalty could be sustained when the appellant asserted export of the goods and the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the export documents, warranting remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed mainly on the basis that the appellant had not produced sufficient proof of export and that Part-B of the ARE-1 forms was not duly certified with shipping bill particulars. The record showed that the appellant had placed reliance on shipping bills, ARE-1 forms, bank realization certificates and other export documents, and the Customs officer had signed and stamped Part-B of the ARE-1 forms. The absence of shipping bill details in Part-B, by itself, could not justify an assumption that the goods were not exported when the particulars in the export documents tallied. The adjudicating authority had not examined the documentary evidence in the proper perspective.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained on the existing record and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalty were set aside for the limited purpose of fresh adjudication, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law and natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based only on incomplete certification in export documents cannot be upheld when the assessee produces material showing actual export and the adjudicating authority fails to examine that evidence before deciding the matter.

---