Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. C/86041/16 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CD/148/BEL/16 dated 15.2.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Respondent Appearance: Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocte for Appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, AC (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 23.08.2016 Date of Decision: 02.09.2016 ORDER NO. Per: Raju
The appellant, M/s B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd., are an EOU. The appellant imported certain material on the strength of procurement certificate obtained from the Central Excise authorities and warehoused the same. From the public warehouse, on the strength of the shipping bill, they transferred the goods to their own warehouse in the factory premises. There was a certain mismatch in the description of goods between the shipping bill and the procurement certificate and therefore, the demand of duty on differential quantity was raised.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the description of the goods was same in the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, packing list and the Bills of Entry for the warehousing. However, in the shipping bill filed for clearance of goods from public warehouse to their factory premises contained only the first line of the product description and the entire quantity of goods was shown against one item. Learned Counsel took me through the documents, which show that the description in the procurement certificate, packing list and Bills of Entry to be identical and matching. She argued that the total quantity mentioned in the shipping bill is same as the quantity mentioned in the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, Bills of Lading and Bills of Entry. However, in the shipping bill only description of the first item of the procurement certificate appears. She argued that the goods have been cleared from the Customs warehouse with the following endorsement on the back of the shipping bills: -
Forwarded Container No. TRHU 2546031 570 packages sealed with Customs Bottle Panchseal No. 182708 and forwarded to the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs Range Turbhe through M/s Shree Vindhyavasini Roadlines Forwarded Container No. UAW 507827 Under Customs Bottle Seal 37 From Balmer MIDC to Turbhe Mhape Under L.R. 438 of M/s Shree Vindhyavasini Roadlines The said endorsement of the shipping bill contained the signature of the officer of Customs. The shipping bill also contains into bond Bill of Entry No. by which the said goods were warehoused. She argued that there has been a clerical error in the shipping bill as instead of description of each item of import, only the top line has been mentioned. In case of shipping bill No. 0304022152 for 3500 kg import has been made against four different procurement certificates under description of the first certificate as mentioned in the shipping bill.
3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.
4. I find that the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, packing list and Bill of Entry for warehousing contain the identical description. The shipping bill has been issued Bill of Entry wise and contain the Bill of Entry No. and date. The total quantity imported and the packages on the Bill of Entry are matching. The only mismatch between the shipping bill and the Bill of Entry is that instead of giving description and quantity of each item of imports, only the description appearing at first Sr. No. has been mentioned and total quantity has been shown against it. I find that the shipping bills have been countersigned and examined by the officers of Customs. The containers have been sealed and sent to the appellant premises. In these circumstances, the only reason for mismatch can be a clerical error. Revenue has not conducted any investigation at the factory to establish that the different goods or different quantity of goods have been received at the factory. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 02.09.2016) (Raju) Member (Technical) Sinha 3 Appeal No. C/86041/16