TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Bhayandar Division, Thane-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants exported their goods under Bond without payment of duty. Applicants were issued Show Cause Notices demanding duty in respect of export consignments cleared for which proof of export was not submitted in time and also in one of the case excisable goods were removed without payment of duty under the cover of invalid Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The original authority subsequently confirmed the duty vide impugned Orders-in-Origirnal and also penalty on the applicants. 2.1 Aggrieved with these Orders-in-Original applicants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned Orders-in-Original. 3. Being aggrieved wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid documents should be accepted as evidences of export. 3.4 The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed vide Order-in-Original No.40/2006-07 dated 04.01.2007. In this regard, the applicants submit that there is no dispute on the fact of export and there is no dispute that the clearances were under cover of excise invoice and ARE-1 and after complying with all the procedures of self removal. The proof of export is also filed with delay of 27 days which stands condoned by accepting the proof of export. There are no ground for invoking penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3.5 No specific contravention is visualized under clause (a) to clause(d) of rule 25 and accordingly, no penalty can be imposed under the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the law laid in by this Court." 5. In compliance of said order of Hon'ble High Court, the personal hearing was fixed on 16.6.2014. Shri Padmanabh S. Pathak, Consultant and Shri Henry D'souza, authorized signatory of the applicants company,appeared for hearing on 16.6.14 before JS (RA) and has given written submissions alongwith the photocopies of supporting documents and requested for grant of relief. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. Government observes that, the applicants exported goods vide various AREs-1. The original authority vide three (3) impugned Orders-in-Original covering four (4) AREs-1 confirmed the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground that the applicants failed to export the goods under valid LUT. Government finds that the Hon'ble High Court in its order has clearly stated that the Court's writ jurisdiction has not been invoked with reference to cases where allegations of export under invalid LUT is involved and the interference of Hon'ble Court was sought only to the extent that the show cause notice demand in respect of exported consignments on the allegation that there is no proof of export submitted by the exporter. Under such circumstances, Government finds that revision order with reference to upholding one of the orders-in-original for imposition of penalty for export under invalid LUT, legally, holds good. Hence, the said impugned order-in-or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004, export invoice No. KPM/EX/05 respectively. The shipping marks Nos. mentioned in excise invoice and export invoice tallies with the shipping marks mentioned in the relevant bill of lading. Further, the quantity/weight, description of excise invoice tallies with quantity/weight and description mentioned in the export invoice. Also, value mentioned in export invoice tallies with amount mentioned in BRC in dollar term. On the basis of collateral evidences, the correlation stands established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export may be treated as completed. As such, demand of duty is not sustainable for aforesaid reasons. However, such verification has been done on the basis of copies of documents submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dollar term then the correlation may be treated as established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export may be treated as completed. Above verification has been done on the basis of copies of documents submitted by the applicants. Hence, the original authority is required to carry out necessary verification on the basis of original documents either available with applicants or submitted to the department of applicants as claimed by them by virtue of acknowledgement of receipt of such documents, and also by verifying documents relating to relevant export proceeds. 9.3 As regard to ARE-1 No.01/05-06 dated 12.4.2006, Government finds that the original authority has dropped the demand of duty, however, confirmed th....