TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against ARE-1 No. 9 and 20 in the shipping bills, it was alleged that the goods covered under ARE-1 have been cleared clandestinely by the appellant without payment of duty. In these sets of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the appellant. The matter was adjudicated and it was held that the goods supplied under ARE-1 certificate were not exported, therefore, the demand of duty was liable to be paid by the appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is the inadvertent mistake of the parental unit, who failed to mention ARE-1 number on the shipping bills. It is his contention that both units are engaged in the manufacture and export of goods. There is no case found by the Revenue that any goods have been cleared by appellant in domestics market in the guise of ARE-1 certificate. Moreover, the details of the goods cleared for export trough shipping bills have been reconciled wherein it shows that the goods mentioned in ARE-1 No.19 and 20 have duly entered in the quantity entered in invoices appended to the shipping bill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered in shipping bills. In that circumstance, the charge of clandestine removal of the goods is not sustainable. 8. Further, we find that there was procedural mistake committed by the parental unit by not mentioning the ARE-1 No.19 and 20 in the shipping bills, in that circumstance, the penalty is imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- is confirmed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: (a) the demand of duty has been set aside (b) The penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is also set aside. (c) The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on the appellant under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Devender Singh) Member, (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Per: Devender Singh Having gone through the Final Order recorded by my Ld. brother Member (Judicial), I proceed to record a separate order. 2. Admittedly, the appellants did not submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1's No.19 dt. 05.10.2005 and No.20 dt. 6.10.2005. They had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for endorsement against the said Shipping Bills mentioned in your letter dt 22.06.2006 has already been rejected on 07.04.2006 and 03.06.2006 as the subject ARE-1's were neither filed at the time of filing of the said shipping bills nor were produced at the time of actual shipment for the required endorsement on the reverse of ARE-1. Further, the subject Shipping Bills did not carry any information about the goods having been manufactured by other than the exporting unit i.e. M/s Broadways Overseas Ltd, G.T. Road, Suranassi, Jalandhar. Accordingly ARE-1 BoI-2/19/05-06 dt. 05.10.2005 and BoI-2/20/05-06 dt. 06.10.2005 could not relate with the exports made under the said Shipping Bills. 5. As rightly observed by the Commissioner, on the said Shipping Bills, M/s Broadway Overseas Ltd. (Unit No.1), G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar has been mentioned as manufacturer/exporter and there is no mention of ARE-1 Bol-2/19/05-06 dt. 05.10.2005 and Bol-2/20/0506 dt. 06.10.2005 on the said Shipping Bills. He has also recorded that the Divisional Assistant Commissioner did not accept the proof of export. 6. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants invited attention to the two ARE-1 forms c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n rebutted. 9. In view of the above, the appellants have failed to substantiate their claim that they had exported the goods cleared from Unit No.2. 10. The contention of the appellants that there is no domestic market for impugned goods has not been substantiated either before the Commissioner or before this Tribunal. 11. Mere Presentation of the ARE-1 document is no proof that the goods were even either presented for the examination. It has no evidentiary value with regard to actual export of goods in the absence of the certification at the required place on the back of the ARE-1 by the both designated officers (emphasis supplied). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Competent Authority Vs. Barangorng Jute Factory and Ors - 2005 (13) SCC 477 has held as under:- "It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning." 12. In the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors Vs. Ambey Cement and Another's 2005 (1) SCC 368 = 2004 (178) ELT 55 SCC, Para 26 of the Judgment, the Court held as under:- "It is the cardinal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m shall be founded. 23. From a bare reading of Rule 18 of Rules, 2002 it is evident that in order to entitle a person to claim rebate, it is open to Government of India by notification to provide a procedure for claiming rebate benefit. It is in purported exercise of power thereunder that the Notification dated 06.09.2004 has been issued which specifically contemplates filing of ARE-I, verification of goods sought to be exported and sealing of goods after such verification by authorities on the spot, i.e., factory premises etc. In case the procedure of filing ARE-I is given a go-bye, the authorities available on spot shall not be able to verify that the goods sought to be exported are same, the description whereof has been mentioned in the vouchers or not. The objective is very clear. It is to avoid surreptitious and bogus export and also to mitigate any paper transaction. 24. It also cannot be doubted that ignorance of law is no excuse to follow something which is required to be done by law in a particular manner. It is well established that when law requires something to be done in a particular manner, any other procedure adopted or the procedure deviated or not followed wo....