AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant and upheld the order-in-original dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Jaipur. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the appeal records. 3. Goods manufactured in India are chargeable to excise duty as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Excise Act]. The duty is payable on removal as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Excise Rules] and the duty has to be actually paid by the 5th day of the following months as per Rule 8 of the Excise Rules. However, if the goods are exported, excise duty gets exempted on such goods under a variety of schemes. Each scheme has its own safeguards and procedures which must be f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CT-1 Certificates to enable it to procure "Batteries" from M/s HBL Power systems Ltd. [HBL], Hyderabad without payment of duty for export under Excise Rule 19. The certificates were issued based on which the goods were removed by HBL under the cover of forms ARE-1 No. 39/2013-2014 dated 18.07.2013 and 45/2013-2014 dated 31.07.2013 issued by HBL. The Jurisdictional Superintendent at Hyderabad sought verification from the Central Excise officers at Jaipur if the goods which were cleared without payment of duty were actually exported. 6. The Central Excise officers at Jaipur asked the appellant to submit proof of export of the goods which were removed without payment of duty. After examining the documents submitted by the appellant in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... NLPL-026/13-14 dated 12.07.2013) issued by the appellants to M/s Central Electronics Ltd., 4, Industrial Area, Sahibabad (U.P.) under which the said goods were transferred to M/s Central Electronics Ltd by the appellants. (v) Copies of invoices No. 07050001 dated 22.08.2013 issued by M/s Central Electronics Ltd., 4, Industrial Area, Sahibabad (U.P.) to M/s Angelique International Ltd., 104-107, Hemkunt Tower, 98 Nehru Place, New Delhi. (vi) Copy of Invoice No. AIL/O-11041/258 dated 12.08.2013 along with packing list issued by M/s Angelique International Ltd. to principal importer, Mozambique along with packing list. (vii) Copy of Bill of Lading and ARE-1 filed by M/s Angelique International Ltd., 104-107, Hemkunt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He rejected the appeal with an observation that the co-relation of the batteries procured against CT-1 and export thereof is not co-related, whereas in the show cause notice there is no such allegation of co-relation of the procured batteries and their export thereof. (d) It is pertinent to mention herein that all the documents were with the department as appellant after export of goods submitted all the documents with the department. (e) There is no violation of provision of Rule 19. The facts stated above clearly prove that the aim and object of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and those contained in Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 were substantially complied with and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be appreciated that the appellants cannot be fastened with non-payment of duty by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, it would be appreciated that the show cause notice having been issued after one year from the period of demand is hit by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is therefore, illegal and untenable and is liable to be set aside. (i) In view of this fact the appellants cannot be fastened with the act of non-export of goods which had been obtained without payment of duty and therefore, the appellants are not liable ....