TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as detailed herein below :- ARE-l No. & Date Description of the goods cleared Value of the goods Duty involved 42/2009-10 dated 31-3-2010 Feedwell washer along with sealing through sealing ring hatch cover deflector cone scrapper pipe with hook, dee shackle with sealing ring Floc, Sparger pipe 45,71,000/- 4,70,813/- The appellant vide their letter dated 16-10-2010 had informed the Range Superintendent that they had received back their manufactured goods from transporter on 16-10-2010, which was cleared from their factory to SEZ unit. In pursuance to that the Range Superintendent had informed the appellant that proof of export in respect of the goods cleared under above ARE-1 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tanding since 6 months time expired. 2. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued informing the appellant that they have failed to apply for extension of time limit for submission of proof of export and receiving the goods back without permission after a gap of more than six months and that appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The proceedings culminated into confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 4,70,813/- with interest and penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even though the matter was listed for considering the request for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay against recovery, after hearing both sides and after noticin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been exported or if the goods have been lost, the manufacturer would pay duty without further delay. This does not mean that for failing to follow the procedure, even when the goods have been accounted for and cleared ultimately to SEZ unit, duty is required to be demanded. In this case, in the absence of any diversion of goods for domestic consumption and in the absence of failure to account for the goods which were manufactured and in view of the fact that after receipt of the goods, the Superintendent verified the goods (as per the appellant) duty demand is not sustainable. 4. Coming to the imposition of penalty, I find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty on the ground that appellant neglected the obligations cast....