2024 (1) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bles, etc., for use in the manufacture of their export goods i.e., Leather Shoes. 1.2 The appellant had executed two B-17 (General Security) Bonds for Rs.8 crores to procure duty free imported and indigenous materials, to cover the movement of non-duty paid materials from one warehouse to another ware house to use them in the manufacture of export goods. The importer / appellant is exempted from furnishing security to the B-17 Bonds in terms of Board Circular No. 54/2004-Cus. dated 13.10.2004. On the basis of pre-authorized certificates they are permitted to procure imported goods without payment of duty. 1.3 The Importer had issued Procurement Certificate No. 361 dated 25.03.2011, based on the Supplier Invoice No. 427097 dated 10.02.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g had invoiced for 11000 pairs though the supply was only 1100 pairs. 1.6 The importer was advised by jurisdictional Central Excise to pay the appropriate customs duties with interest on the short quantity also. The duty payable on the short quantity was Rs.99,531/-. The appellant was thereupon issued Show Cause Notice proposing to demand Rs.99,531/- being the customs duty along with interest payable on short receipted quantity of Rubber Top Pieces - 9900 pairs and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority observed that there is indeed short receipt of goods and that it is a clear case of clerical error on the part of supplier and lack of application of mind of the CHA. The proposal of duty demand was dropp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was only a genuine mistake at supplier's end. The Department did not respond to this representation till date. 2.2 Meanwhile, the appellant was asked to pay the duty and also was issued the Show Cause Notice. It is submitted that the original authority after examining all the documents had set aside the demand observing that it was a mistake committed while noting the quantity in the supplier's invoice. The Ld. counsel adverted to the Purchase Order to argue that appellant had placed order only for 1100 pairs and had received the same quantity only. The CHA had filed the Bill of Entry on the basis of supplier's invoice in which the figure was wrongly mentioned as 11000 pairs. The bank statement would also show that appellant has paid amo....