Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Clipsal Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 8 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(117)ECR468(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the imposition of penalty on the appellants for violation of the Condition-II of Notification No. 42/2001 dated 26.6.2001, for having failed to submit the proof of export within 6 months from the date of clearance of the goods, from the factory.
2. The Id. Counsel has contended that the Condition No. II of the above said Notification prescribed period of six months only for the purpose of export of the goods by a manufacturer after the clearance from the factory premises and not for submission of proof of export before the competent authority for the discharge of the Bond. Therefore, the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellants for having failed to submit proof of export within six months, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Ld. JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants cleared the goods from their factory on 29.12.2000 and 27.2.2001 and exported the same within six months from those dates. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/-has been imposed on them for having failed to submit proof of export within six months from the date of clearances of goods from the factory by invoking Condition No. II of the above said Notification. But, in my view, this condition could not be invoked for imposing penalty on the appellants. The bare perusal of this Condition of the Notification leaves no doubt in one's mind that a manufacturer is required to export the goods within six months from the date of the clearance of goods, from the factory. This condition nowhere speaks of submission of proof of export by the manufacturer thereafter, within six months from the date of clearances of the goods for a export, from the factory, before the competent authority for seeking discharge of the Bond. It appears that the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has misinterpreted Condition No. II of the above said Notification and wrongly imposed penalty on the appellants when they had«not committed its violation for having exported the goods within the stipulated period of six months from the date of clearances of the same for export from the factory. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
Order dictated & pronounced in open Court on 8.9.2004.