Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commr. Of Central Excise,Customs & ... vs M/S Bata India Ltd on 25 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Ex. Appeal No.403/09
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.46/Pat/CEX/Appeal/2009 dated 28.4.2009 passed by Commr. of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Patna.
SHRI S. S. KANG, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commr. of Central Excise,Customs & S.Tax, Patna
...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s Bata India Ltd.
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri J. A. Khan, SDR for the Appellant Revenue Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr.Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
SHRI S. S. KANG, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT Date of hearing & decision : 25.08.2009 ORDER NO......................................................................................... Per Shri S. S. Kang :
Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
2. There is no order, reviewing the impugned order, by the Committee of Commissioner or authorization to file the appeal as required under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act is filed by the Revenue.
3. On merit, I find that the show-cause notice was issued demanding duty on the ground that the goods were cleared under bond for export and the respondent failed to show the proof of export.
4. After going through the evidences on record, such as, attested copies of Shipping Bill, Inward Bank remittance/Customs Invoice, showing the export of the goods, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings.
5. The main contention of the Revenue is that in the Remittance Certificate, the amount is shown, as $ 45137.20 whereas the impugned consignment was valued at $ 15,840.00, hence, could not be correlated. It is submitted that the Shipping Bill, Lading Bill, Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate were not filed in the specified form and duly self-attested were not submitted by the respondent.
6. The contention of the respondent is that the respondent filed the attested copies of Shipping Bill and other relevant documents and the same have been noticed in the adjudication order in the finding portion. In respect of difference of amount in the Remittance Certificate, the contention is that an advance was received in respect of three consignments and a debit invoice issued by the State Bank of India, shows that this amount is in respect of three invoices including the invoice relating to the present dispute.
7. I find that in this case, the respondent filed self-attested copies of the documents, such as, Shipping Bill, Lading Bill etc. in support of their claim that the goods in question were actually exported. In respect of the Certificate of remittance, I find that the same is in respect of the three invoices including the invoice of the goods in dispute. Both the lower authorities after going through the evidences on record held that the goods were actually not exported. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (S. S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT mm 3 Ex.Appeal No.403/09