TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of the above said AR4s, the said M/s. Cotfab Exports filed with the Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai the Shipping Bills and Bill of Lading, mentioned in the Order-in-Original as proof of export. On scrutiny of the said documents and comparing the details given therein with regard to description of goods cleared for export, the following glaring mistakes were noticed :- (1) AR4 No. 3/98-99, dt. 11-4-98, shows that 100% polyster printed fabrics width 195 cms have been cleared under Inv. No. 4/11-4-1998. However, as per the Shipping Bills No. 1028202/15-4-1998, and bill of lading produced in support of the above AR4, the goods actually exported were described as 52% Polyster 48% cotton (other than grey) dyed/printed fabrics. Hence the description of goods shown on the AR4s and S/B, B/L, are totally different. (2) AR4 No. 90/97-98 dt. 7-3-98, shown that 100% Polyester printed fabrics "Springers" width 186 cms have been cleared under Invoice No. 155/7-3-98. However, as per Shipping Bills No. 10180007/10-3-1998, and relevant bill of lading, the goods actually exported were described as 52% Polyest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abrics then there is every possibility of clearance of 100% polyester fabrics under the AR4 Therefore, in absence of any concrete corroborative evidence. M/s. Cotfab have failed to prove beyond doubt their bona fide in the matter. So it can be safely concluded that the noticee has not exported the same fabrics as cleared from the premises of supporting manufacturer along with the Excise Invoice and AR4s. Hence noticee's defence like it is clerical error at the premises of their supporting manufacture is not acceptable. In cases where such export were not taken the law would be stringently apply to demand duty of excise. I have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the impugned goods have not been cleared for export by the noticee and in the absence of clear-cut evidence to the contrary, the law fortifiled me in holding that Central Excise duty is required to be recovered. Accordingly, I hold that the goods are liable for discharge of Central Excise duty. Once I hold that the goods were chargeable to duty for reason of non-export, the penal provision and interest provision also apply." 2.5 The adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Rs. 5,63,109/- under Section 11A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the Simplex Mills Co., Mumbai, and forwarded to M/s. Sanghi Textiles Ltd., with specific directions for job to be carried out and specific programme for export under AR4s directly to JM PT on or before specific time limit given therein. (viii) That the applicants also enclose herewith a certificate issued on 6-8-1998, for the consignments procured under three invoices all dt. 20-3-1998, for the grey fabrics supplied to M/s. Cotfab Exports indicating that said fabrics contains 52% polyester and 48% of cotton. (ix) That the said errors were not noticed by the appellants clearing agents while preparing respective shipping bills for each of the consignments covered under AR4s No. 3/98-99 dt. 11-4-98, 90/97-98 dt. 7-3-98, 63/97-98 dt. 9-12-97 and 78/97-98 dt. 28-1-1998. (x) That on realizing the error of recording description during the course of effecting clearance under above referred AR4s during the period from 9-12-1997 to 11-4-1998 as 100% polyester instead of correct description as polyester 52% and cotton 48% the management of M/s. Sanghi Textiles Ltd., i.e., a processors had intimated of their error incidences vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocured from Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd., Calcutta, for export, has been exported out of India through Shipping Bill Nos. 1028202 dt. 24-5-98, 1018007 dt. 10-3-98, 202335 dt. 23-1-1998 and 077159 dt. 26-11-1997. The applicants have contended that through the said Shipping Bills they have exported blended fabrics having composition of 52% Polyster and 48% Cotton and fall under Chapter Heading 55.12 only due to by oversight the description was noted in the said AR4 and invoices as 100% Polyster printed fabrics. In order to examine the correctness of the applicant's contention Govt. has gone through the AR4s, Shipping Bills, Invoices etc., and finds that these documents are having several entries of goods which are common in all the documents as per detail below :- Sl. No. Documents Description of goods Qty. Marks and Nos. Width 1. AR4 No. 3/98-99 55 Rolls 11998 L.Mt. 2012 to 2042 and 2099 to 2122 195 2. S/B 1028202 dt. 15-4-98 2099 to 2142 and 2012 to 2042 3. Export Invoice No. 98/1004/13-4-98 55 Rolls -Do- -Do- -Do- 4. B/L No. 02185 -Do- -Do- -Do- -Do- Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rics falling under Chapter Heading 55.12 only. However, the description noted in the said AR4s and invoices as 100% polyester printed fabrics was purely oversight and nothing else" 5.5 Govt., further notes that it is not case of the Deptt. that the letter of the Range Supdt., (sub-para 5.2) or Customs endorsement on Part B of the AR4s are false or bogus. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances Govt., finds force in the contention of the applicants that they have cleared vide the above said AR4s blended MMF of Chapter Heading 55.12 but inadvertantly noted the description of the goods as 100% polyster printed fabrics. In case of - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) Union of India v. Suksha International & Nutan Gems & Anr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In Union of India v. A. V. Narasimhalu - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Simi....