Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pam Pac Machineries Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Pune I on 7 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/314/10 and E/951/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. PI/VSK/244/2009 dated 24.11.09 and PI/VSK/135/2009 dated 27.05.09 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 :
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. Pam Pac Machineries Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellants
Versus
CCE Pune I
Respondents
Appearance Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Appellants Shri H.B. Negi, SDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 07.10.10 Date of Decision : 07.10.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are the exporters and as per the procedure they have to file ARE 1 within 24 hours of export to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. For the months of September to October 2008 and April 2009 instead of filing the ARE 1 within 24 hours, the appellants filed once in a month. The department, accordingly, issued 33 show-cause notices against 33 AREs and penalties of Rs.1,000/- each of show-cause notices were imposed on the appellants under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are in appeal.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they were instructed orally by the Department to file ARE 1 once in a month instead of coming to the office daily, that is why the appellants have filed once in month. He further submits that it is just a procedural lapse for one particular period which does not involve any duty implication. For that error, multiple penalties should not be imposed, and it should be composite under one show-cause notice and prayed that penalties be waived.
3. On the other hand the learned DR reiterated the impugned order and submits that it is an admitted fact by the appellants that there is a technical breach on following the procedure laid down in the Central Excise Rules.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the sides. There is no doubt that the appellants are the regular exporter and they were filing ARE 1 in time to the department. The only allegation is that, in a particular period of time, they have not filed ARE 1. In the absence of any written order from the jurisdictional officer, that is only a technical lapse on the part of the appellants. In that event, considering the facts of the case, the penalties are reduced to Rs.2,000/- in both the appeals. With this observation both the appeals are disposed of.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3