2019 (12) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant during the period of March, 2011 to February, 2013 on the ground that the appellant did not follow the procedure of Notification No. 42 of 2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 by preparing ARE-1 as provided in Annexure-14 Part-7 of CBEC manual. An equal amount of penalty was also imposed Under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Sh. Prakash Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 20.01.2016 proposing recovery of Duty on the Readymade Garments exported during March, 2011 to February, 2013 by invoking extended period. The appellant as exporter of readymade garments rightly followed the simpl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dispute arose due to withdrawal of exemption to the branded readymade garments during the period of dispute. Even the post period of dispute, the garments were once again exempted and there is no demand even though branded readymade garments are exported by the appellant following simplified procedure. 3. He submits that denial of simplified procedure on the ground that it is applicable to exempted units only has rendered the circular dated 8.04.2003 redundant and defeats the purpose for which the circular was issued. He submits that in any event the demand cannot be sustained even if procedure under Notification No.42/2001-CE is not followed, in absence of any dispute as to the actual exports of goods. He submits that once the fact of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k. With this admitted fact that can be no intent to evade duty and no duty is payable on the export of goods. There was no gain to the appellant or loss to the revenue for not complying with the ARE-1 procedure.In the above undisputed fact, the fact of export of goods was very much in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, there was no suppression of fact accordingly the extended period was not invocable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • Yenepoya Minerals & Granites Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Bangalore reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 427 (Tri.-Bang.) • Nahar Industrial Enterprises ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.-Del.) • Commissioner Vs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Notification No.42/2001-CE(NT) was not followed. 6. We find that the government has prescribed a simplified procedure particularly for those units who are not clearing their goods in home consumption but entire production is exported. In this regard various circulars were issued from time to time. It is observed that as regard the readymade garment, there is a specific circular No. 705/21/2003-CX dated 8.04.2003 was issued. According to which the appellant was suppose to follow the simplified procedure as prescribed in the said circular that means the appellant was not required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Notification 42/2001-CE (NT). Therefore, we are of the Prima Facie view that the demand only on the basis that the app....