Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 June, 2003

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai

Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 June, 2003

ORDER
 

 Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,90,22,405/- confirmed on the ground inter-alia that export documents submitted by the appellants herein, who are Merchant Exporter did not constitute the proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., and M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and that proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and M/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Kolhapur, was not filed and penalty of amount equal to duty, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had executed B-1 Bond dated 11/06/2001 with the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer for removal of sugar without payment of duty for export from the above mentioned three registered factories. The appellant was holding "Star Trading House" status and was, therefore not required to submit any security against the bond. They removed a total quantity of sugar involving duty of Rs. 55,18,965/- from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., Solapur, during the period 17/06/2001 to 06/08/2001 for export under AR-4s. The scrutiny of documents submitted as proof of the export revealed that the sugar cleared from the factory was packed in 100 kgs bags, whereas the documents shows the exported sugar in 50 kgs bags. In some cases, the date of sailing of the vessel was prior to the date of removal of sugar from the factory and in some cases the sugar appeared to have been procured from different divisions. Since they failed to submit adequate proof of export of the sugar procured from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., they were liable to pay duty thereon. For the same reason, the appellants were found to be liable to pay duty of Rs. 2,29,46,260/- on sugar procured from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., Solapur, during the period 16/06/2001 to 22/08/2001 for export. The appellants were further found to be liable to pay duty of Rs. 41,33,380/- on 48,628 quintals of sugar procured from M/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., during the period 06/09/2001 to 24/09/2001 for failure to submit proof of export within the period stipulated, i.e. six months from the date of clearance from the place of procurement of sugar. On the above basis three show cause notices were issued to the appellants proposing recovery of total duty of Rs. 3,25,98,605/- and proposing recovery of interest in terms of the general B-1 Bond read with Clause 2(v)(b) of Notification No. 42/2001 dated 26/06/2001. Penal action under Rule 209(A) and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act was also proposed in the notice. Discrepancies noticed in the show cause notices are listed in annexure "A" to this order. The Commissioner of Central Excise accepted the plea of the appellants that the sugar was originally supplied by the mills in 100 kg packing but was re-packed in 50 kgs packing under Customs supervision, as per the requirement of the foreign buyer, and that clearance to countries other than those shown as the country of destination for export viz., Pakistan was also permissible and did not result in failure of proof of export. For these reasons, he dropped the part of the demands raised on these counts. He upheld the charge in respect of certain AR-4s wherein it was alleged that shipping bills and bill of lading submitted by the appellants showed that the sugar consignment was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Commissionerate and also from Pune Commissionerate and, therefore, confirmed the demand of Rs. 69,42,375/- in respect removal of sugar from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., and Rs. 11,74,615/- in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd. Further, for failure to submit proof of export of sugar within the stipulated period, he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 37,97,035/- in respect of sugar removed for export from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., Rs. 29,75,000/- in respect of sugar removed from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and Rs. 41,33,380/- in respect of sugar removed from Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd. He confirmed demands as under:-

S.No. Name of the Company Duty amount

i) Sugar removed for export from M/s.S.M.S.M.P SSK Ltd Rs. 1,07,39,4 10

ii) Sugar removed for export from M/s.Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., Rs.4 1.49,61 5/-

iii) Sugar removed from M/s.Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Rs.4 1.33,380/-

Total Rs.1,90,22,405/-

( Detailed in Annexure 'B'

3. He also ordered recovery of Interest @ 24% per annum on such duty from the date of removal for export from the place of procurement till the date of payment of duty and also imposed penalty equal to duty on the appellants, hence this appeal.

4. We have heard both sides. We note that the appellants had purchased a total quantity of 1,24,077.10 M.Ts of sugar from 13 sugar mills in the State of Maharashtra. It is the submission that the entire consignment was exported through 197 Shipping bills, that the payment in respect of 195 out of 197 Shipping bills has been received and they have annexed 197 Bank Realization Certificates to the appeal to support their stand that the entire quantity procured from these three mills and the remaining 10 mills were duly exported. It is their submission that it was not possible to identify any particular sugar cargo as originating from any particular sugar mill due to the large quantity and due to the fact that it was to be exported in a very short time. They had also raised the plea that sugar was procured entirely from sugar mills within Maharashtra and that they had not procured any sugar from any factory within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Commissipnerate, but this plea has not been considered/verified by the adjudicating authority. The appellants also requested for consolidation of proceedings in respect of export made by 10 other mills in Maharashtra from which they had procured the sugar alongwith the present proceedings covering procurement from 3 sugar mills in Maharashtra, so that complete tallying could take place and discrepancies (as set out in the impugned order and listed in annexure 'A' to this order) removed. They state that they will be able to co-relate all exports if they are given a fresh opportunity and if directions are given for consolidation of proceedings in respect of sugar procured from all 13 mills in Maharashtra. We note these submissions and also noting the fact that there is no allegation regarding procurement of sugar from any source other than registered sugar factories in Maharashtra, we accede to the prayer of the appellants for remand, for the purpose of establishing that all the sugar procured by the appellants from mills in Maharashtra were ultimately exported in terms of Notification No. 42/2001. The request for consolidation of all proceedings in this regard is to be made by the appellants to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de-novo adjudication, in the light of the above guidelines.

5. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

Annexure "A"

DISCREPENCIES NOTICE

(i) Show ecause notice dated 17.06.2001 issued for the procurement of sugar from SMSMPSSK Ltd.

s.no.

AR4/ARE-1 No. & Date Quantity removed (in Qtl) Duty demanded (in Rs.) Discrepancies.

1/16.06.2001 3870 328950 As per AR-4 the export destination 'shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5160496 dated 07.08.2001 the consignment exported to Indonesia. Bill of Lading not produced 2 2/17.06.2001 5520 469200 The stopping bi!l no. 5148726 dated 18.06.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured frum the jurisdiction of Division VI of Hyderabad Commissioneratc-I. 3 3/18.06.2001 2910 247350 The shipping bfll No. 5148727 dated 18.06.2001 indicated that the sugar originally procured from the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Commissionerale.

4/ 19.06.2001 700 59500 5 5/21.06.2001 540 45900 As per AR-4, the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5M9127 dalcil

20. 06. 2001. the consignment exported to Malaysia. Dill of I-ading not produced.

6/22.06.2001 10620 902700 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5160496 dated 07.08.2001 ihe consignment exported to Indone-sia. Bill of lading not uroduccil.

7 / 23.06.2001 8490 721650 The shipping hill no. 5145341 dated 04.06.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I Hyderabad Commissioncrate. Further the actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 23.06.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill No. 5145341 dated 04.06.200! indicated the shipment of the consignment on 11.06.2001. The Mate Receipt No. 46 dated 21-06-2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel on 21.06,2001.

8/25.06.2001 6510 553350 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 25.06.2001 whereas the shipping bill No.5145160 dated 04.06.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 08-06-2001. The relevant Mate Receipt No. 44 dated 16-06-2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel on 16.06.2001.

9/26.06.2001.

3180

270300 As per /VR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bffl Nb. 5162520 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Yemen. Bill of Lading not produced.

10/30.06.2001 7',!20 613701;

As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5149127 dated 20.06.2001 Uiy consignment exported to Malaysia. Bill of lading not produced.

11/01.07.2001 10060 855100 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5157418 dated 26.07.2001 and shipping bill No. 5166561 dated 05.09.2001, the consignment exported to Malaysia.

12/02.07.2001 2402 204170 As per AR-4 the export destination was Rhown as Pakistan hut as per the shipping hill No. 5160(>8I dined 09.0S.2001 the consignment exported to Vietnam.

13/14.07.2001 2780 236300 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the nhipping bill No. 5160981 dated 09.08.2001 and Shipping Bill No. 5162520 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Malaysia. Bill of Lading not produced.

14/15.07.2001 9970 847450 Proof of export not produced.

15/16.07.2001 7481 635885 Proof of export not produced.

16/18.07.2001 8130 691050 'The AR-4 indicated thai the consignment was exported vide shipping bill Nos 515733 dated 26.07.2001, 5157417 dated 26.07.2001 and 5166S61 dated 05.09.2001 and the export destination was Pakistan but the relevant shipping bills indicated that the consignment exported to Dubai, Singapore and Malaysia respectively.

17/19.07.2001 11740 997900 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5156864 d.ilcd 23.07.2001 the consignment exported to Dubai. Bill of Lading not produced.

IX 18/20.07.2001 1.10 11050 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5156888 dated 23.07.2001 the consignment exported to Dubai.

19/22.07.2001 9540 810900 Bill of Lading not produced.

20/23.07.2001 $140 691900 Proof of export not produced.

21/2-1.07.2001 1987 168895 The shipping bill Nos. 5 1 57333 dated 26.07.2001 and No. 5153855 dated 10.07.2001 indicated that the !vnr was procured from (he justdiction of Division VII of Pune I Commissionerate and as per the details available on shipping bill No. 5153885 dated 10.07.2001 the shipment was on 12.07.2001. The relevant Mate Receipt No. 3701 dated 17.07.2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel as 17.07.2001.

22/26.07.2001 6650 565250 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill Nos. 5 160979 dated 09. 08. 2001 and Shipping bill No 5166561 dated 05.09.2001 tin-consignment exported lo Vietnam and Malaysia respectively.

23/27.07.2001 12620 1072700 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill Nos.5158071 dated 27.07.2001 and 5162477 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Pakistan and Yemen respectively.

24/28.07.2001 11440 972400 Proof of export not produced.

25/29.07.2001 9227 784295 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factoiy was on 29.07.2001 whereas the shipping bill No.5156864 dated 23.07.2001 indicated the sliipment of the consignment on 24.07.2001. Mate Receipt not produced.

Jn .liUI'.-'OOl(sick)(sick) 5KD(sick) 50005(sick) As per AR 4 thc export destinationwas shown as pakistan but as per theshipping bill No 5162519 dated 18.07.2001 the consignment expoted to Indonesia bill of 1 ading not produced.

2,7/0108.2001 14050 1 194250 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5162519 dated 18.0K.2001 and 5162521 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Indonesia. bill of Lading not produced.

28/03.08.2001 1 1 670 991950 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pajastan but as per the shipping bill Nps.

- 51625-19 dated 18.08.2001 and Shipping bill No. 5162469 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Indonesia. Dill of Lading not submitted.

29/04.08.2001 3680 312800 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per thc_ shipping bill No. 5157332 dated 26.07.2001 the consignment exported to U AE. Bill of Lading not submitted.

30/05.08.2001 600 51000 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 1000037987 dated 28.09.2001 the consignment exported to Singapore. Bill of Lading not submitted.

31/08.08.2001 2570 218450 As per AR-4 the export destination was shown as Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5157333 dated 26.07.2001 the consignment exported to UAE. Bill of Lading not submitted. Further, the actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 08.08.2001 whereas the above shipping bill indicated the shipment of the consignment as 07.08.2001. However, the Mate Receipt No.67 dated 21-08-2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on board the vessel as 21-08-2001.

32/09.08.2001 11673 992205 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 09.08.2001 whereas the shipping bill No.5157417 dated 26.07.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 27.07.2001. Also the Mate Receipt No. 1835 daied 03.08.2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on board the vessel as 03.08.2001 ..

33/10.08.2001 7460 634100 34 34/11.08.2001 6410 544850 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 1000037517 dated 24.09.2001, 1000037774 dated 24.09.2001 and 1000037987 dated 28.09.2001, the consignment exported to Singapore.

35/12.08.2001 6320 537200 The shipping bill No. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 and 5157332 dated 27-7-2001 indicated that the sugar was procured from Hyderabad Commissionerate. Further the removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 12.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bills indicated that the shipment of the consignment had taken place on 26.07.2001 arid 07.08.2001 respectively.

36/13.08.2001 8980 763300 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5 159832 dated 03.08.2001 the consignment exported to Malaysia. Further, the actual removal of Ihe sugar from the registered factory was on 13.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill indicated that the shipment of the consignment had taken place on 06.08.2001.

37/14.08.2001 7640 649400 Proof of export not produced.

38/15.08.2001 6399 543915 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bill Nos. 5162520 dated 18.08.2001 and 5166561 dated 05.09.2001 Ihe consignment exported to Yemen and Malaysia respectively.

39/16.08.2001 400 34000 The actual removal of the sugar from Ihe registered factory wan on 16.08.200J whereas (lie relevant shipping bill No. 5159832 dated 03.08.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 03.08.2001.

40/21.08.2001 11830 1005550 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 21.08.2001 whereas the relevant stopping bill Nos 5158070 dated 27.07.2001 and 5159832 dated 03.08.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 28.07.2001 and 06.08.2001 respectively.

41/22.08.2001 7828 665380 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 22.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5162477 dated 18.08.2001 and 5162468 dated 18.08,2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 183.08.200] and 21.08.2001 respectively.

TOTAL 269956 22946260

(ii)Show cause notice dated 17.06.2001 issued for the procurement of sugar from Shri. Shankar SSK Ltd., Solapur.

Sr.No. AK4/ARE-1 No, & Date Quantity removed (in Qty) Duty demanded Discrepancies 1 1/1 7. 00. 2001 2090 177650 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan hut as per the shipping bill No. 516257.0 dated 18. 08. 2001 the consignment exported lo Yemen. Bill of lading not submitted.

2/18.06.2001 4020 341700 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per Hie shipping bill No. 5 162520 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Yemen.

3/19.06.2001 3890 330650 The shipping bill No. 5 M 8726 dated 18.06.2001 indicated tli.it the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division VI Hyderabad-I Commissioncrate.

4/23.06.7.001 3030 257550 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No. 5162468 dated 18. 08. 2001 the consignment exported to Yemen. Bill of Lading not produced.

5/24.06.2001 6970 592450 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bit) No. 5162468 dated 18.08.2001 the consignment exported to Yemen. Bill of Lading not produced.

6'02.07.2001 6790 577150 Proof of export not produced.

7/03.07.2001 82!0 697850 Proof of export not produced.

8/19.07.2001 810 68850 Proof of exnort not procluced.

9/02.07.2001 6840 581400 Proof of export not produced.

10/21.07.2001 8830 750550 Proof of export not produced.

11/22.07.2001 3520 299200 Proof of export not produced.

12/04.08.2001 3310 281350 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 04.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 26.07.2001. Further, the relevant shipping bill indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

13/05.08.2001 4330 368050 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factry was on 05.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 26.07.2001. Further, the relevant shipping bill indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

14/06.08.2001 2289 194565 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 06.08. 200] whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of ' "ii 26.07.2001. . Mrf'M-^ ''"* '"I'v.'.int shinpnfr bin indicated that the sugar was originally procured i.vitt Uw j wi lailu/tion of(Sick) Division-1 of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

TOTAL 64 929 5518965

(iii) Show cause notice dated 12.07.2001 issued for the procurement of sugar from M/s.Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Kolhanur AR4/ARE1 No. & Date Quantity removed (in Qtl) Duty demanded (in Rs.) Discrepancies 20/06.09.2001 14300 1215500 Proof of export not produced 21/07.09.2001 12610 1071850 Proof of export not produced 26/20.09.2001 1790 152150 Proof of export not produced 27/21.09.2001 5420 460700 Proof of export not produced 28/22.09.2001 7270 617050 Proof of export not produced 29/23.09.2001 7060 600100 Proof of export not produced 30/24.09.2001 178 15130 Proof of export not produced Total 48628 4133380 DETAILS OF DEMAND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER

(a) Sugar procured from M/s.SMSMP SSK Ltd., SI.No. AR4/ARE-1No. & Date Quantity removed (in Otl) Duty demanded (in Rs.) Discrepancies.

2/17.06.2001 5520 469200 The shipping bill No. 5148726 dated 18.06.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division VI of Hyderabad Commissionerate-I. 2 3/18.06.2001 2010 247350 The shipping bill No. 5148727 dated 18.06.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

7/23.06.2001 8490 721650 The shipping bill No.5145341 dated 04.06.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-1 Hyderabad Commissionerate. Further the actua! removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 23.06.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill No.5145341 dated 04.06.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 11.06.2001. The Mate Receipt No.46 dated 21 062001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel on 21.06.2001 4 8/25.06.2001 6510 553350 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 25.06.2001 whereas the shipping bill No.5145160 dated 04.06.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 08.06.2001. The relevant Male Receipt No. 44 dated 16.06.2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel on 16.06.2001 5 14/15.7.200 9970 847450 Proof of export not produced 6 15/16.7.200 7481 635885 Proof of export not produced 7 20/23.7.200 8140 691900 Proof of export not produced 8 21/24.7.200:

1987

168895 The shipping bill Nos. 5157333 dated 26.07.2001 and No. 5153885 dated 10.07.2001 indicated that the sugar was procured from the jurisdiction of Division VII of Pune 1 Commissionerate and as per the details available on shipping Bill No.5153885 dated 10.07.200! the shipment was on 12.07.2001. The relevant Mate Receipt No.3701 dated 17.07.2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on Board the vessel as 17.07.2001.

9.

24/28.7.2001 11440 972400 Proof of export not produced.

10. 25/29.7.2001 9227 784295 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 29.07.2001 whereas the shipping bill No.5156864 dated 23.07.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 24.07.2001. Mate Receipt not produced

11. 32/09.8.2001 11673 992205 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 09.08.2001 whereas the shipping bill No. 5157417 dated 26.07.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 27.07.2001. Also the Mate Receipt No. 1835 dated 03.08.2001 indicated the date of receipt of the consignment on board the vessel as 03.08 2001.

12. 35/12.08.2001 6320 537200 The shipping bill No.51440660 dated 16.05.2001 and 5157332 dated 27.7.2001 indicated that the sugar was procured from Hyderabad Commossionerate. Further the removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on I2.08.2001whereas the relevant shipping bills indicated that the shipment of the consignment had taken place on 26.07.2001 and 07.08.2001 respectively.

36/13.08.2001 8980 763300 As per AR-4 the export destination was Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No.5159832 dated 03.08.2001 the consignment exported to Malaysia. Further, the actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 1308.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill indicated that the shipment of the consignment had taken place on 06.08.2001

14. 37/14.8.2001 7640 649400 Proof of export not produced.

15. 39/1 6.8.2001 400 34000 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 16.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill No. 5159832 dated 03.08.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 03.08.2001

16. 40/21.08.2001 11830 1005550 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 21.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos.5158070 dated 27.07.2001 and 5159832 dated 03.08.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 28.07.2001 and 06.08. 2001 resoectivelv.

17. 41/22.8.2001 7323 665380 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 22.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5 162477 dated 18.08.2001 and 5162468 dated 18.08.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 18.08.2001 and 21. 08.2001 respectively.

(b) Sugar procured from M/s.Shrcc Shankar SSK Ltd., S.No. AR4/ARE-1 No. & Date Quantity removed (in Qtl) Duty demanded (in Rs.) Discrepancies.

3/19.06.2001 3890 330650 The shipping bill No. 5148726 dated 18.06.2001 indicated thai the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division VI 2 6/02.0T.2001 6790 577150 Proof of export not produced.

7/03.07.2001 8210 697850 Proof of export not produced.

8/19.07.2001 810 68850 Proof of export not produced.

9/02.07.2001 6840 581400 Proof of export not produced.

10/21.7.2001 8830 750550 Proof of export not produced.

11/22.7.2001 3520 299200 Proof of export not produced.

g 12/04.8.2001 3310 281350 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 04.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping hill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 26.07.2001. Further, the relevant shipping bill indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

13/05.8.2001 4330 368050 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 0508.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 26.07.2001. Further, the relevant shipping bill indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

14/06.8.2001 2289 194565 The actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 06.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill Nos. 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 indicated the shipment of the consignment on 26.07.2001. Further, the relevant shipping bill indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division-I of Hyderabad Commissionerate.

AR4/AREI No. & Date Quantity removed (in OH) Duty demanded (in Rs.) Discrepancies 20/06.09.2001 14300 1215500 Proof of export not produced 21/07.09.2001 12610 1071850 Proof of export not produced 26/20.09.2001 1790 152150 Proof of export not produced 27/21.09.2001 5420 460700 Proof of export not produced 28/22.09.2001 7270 617050 Proof of export not produced 29/23.09.2001 7060 600100 Proof of export not produced 30/24.09.2001 178 15130 Proof of export not produced Total 48628 4133380

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai

Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 June, 2003