TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xport without payment of duty. M/s Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd., Uganda, vide purchase order no. FPI1266 dated 1.6.2009 had placed an order with the Applicant for supply of one Gear Box (Crane Duty) BH-500 Model @ US$5520 FOB, Mumbai. As per the said purchase order, 100% advance payment has to be made before dispatch. Accordingly the foreign buyer remitted US$5520 equivalent to Rs. 2,54,637..60 on 4.12.2009. In the meantime, the Applicant obtained CT-1 No. 44/2009-10 dated 10.11.2009 for procurement of Crane Duty Helical Gear Box from M/s New Allenberry Works, Kolkata, for export without payment of duty. The total Central Excise Duty involved was Rs. 14,329/-. Accordingly, the said goods were removed for export under ARE-1 No. 01/PME/09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Section 11AC. However, vide Order-in-Original No. 04/2011-12 dated 15.07.2011 the Deputy Commissioner(Bond) Central Excise, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 14,329/- with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,329/- on the Applicant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 3. Beings aggrieved by the said, Order-in-Original, applicant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The lower authorities failed to appreciate that in terms of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The lower authorities failed to appreciate that in the instant case the export consignment was examined, the goods were assessed and the shipment was allowed by the Proper Officer of Customs vide Let Export Order (LEO) dated 19.1.2010. The duly assessed shipping bill containing Let Export Order has been handed over to the shipping line on 20.1.2010 for immediate shipment of the goods. 4.4 The lower authorities failed to appreciate that the Applicant was entitled for the benefit of remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 in as much as the goods were destroyed in the fire which occurred in the warehouse at CFS before stuffing in the containers. As per the following judgements remission of duty would be available eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be liable for confiscation. Hence, there is no reason for imposing penalty on the Applicant under Rule 26. 4.7 The lower authorities failed to appreciate that Section 11AC cannot be invoked in the instant case as there is no fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions or rules with intent to evade payment of duty. The orders of the lower authorities are illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 4.8 Without prejudice to the above, it is well settled that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on a firm. The impugned order imposing penalty on the Applicant, which is Partnership firm, is contrary to and in violation of the following judgements:- &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty involved in impugned goods with applicable interest and also imposed penalty on applicants of amount equal to duty demanded. The original authority held that the applicant failed to export the goods as per provision of Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. The findings as given by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 5 of Order-in-Appeal are as under:- "5. The appellant have cleared the goods for export, vide ARE-1 No. 01/PME/09-10 dated 8.12.2009 and Excise Invoice dated 8.12.2009 to their shipping....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, "has been substituted. Provided also that where such duty exceeds one lakh rupees but does not exceed five lakh rupees, the provisions of this rule shall have effect as if for the expression "Commissioner", the expression "Joint Commissioner of Central Excise or Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, " has been substituted. On a plain reading of the Rule 21(supra), it is clear that the remission of duty under the said rule is available only to the goods which have not been removed from the factory/warehouse. In th....