Velji P & Sons VERSUS  C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

Excise Appeal No. 216 of 2012- SM

 

(Arising out of OIA-06-08/2012-BVR-/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 13/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT)

 

Velji P & Sons

VERSUS 

C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

WITH 

Excise Appeal No. 217 of 2012- SM 

(Arising out of OIA-06-08/2012-BVR-/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 13/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT)

Bhavin Hariharbhai Thanki

VERSUS

C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

AND 

Excise Appeal No. 218 of 2012- SM 

(Arising out of OIA-06-08/2012-BVR-/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 13/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT)

Rawmin Mining And Industries Pvt Ltd

VERSUS

C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

APPEARANCE:

Shri Sudhanshu Bissa, Advocate appeared for the Appellant

Shri Vijay G Iyengar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent

 

CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR

 

 

Final Order No. A/10411 – 10413 /2023

 

 

 

 

RAMESHNAIR

DATE OF HEARING: 10.11.2022 DATE OF DECISION: 07.03.2023

 

 

These appeals are directed against the Order- In- Appeal No OIA-06- 08/2012-BVR-/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Rajkot whereby the Learned Commissioner passed the following order –

“18. In light of the foregoing discussions and findings. I pass the following order

 

• Iuphold the impugned order of the Lower Authority as far as it relates to

 

1. confiscation of the detained goods under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules along with option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of 5,00,000/-

 

1. confirmation and recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.18,20,387/- under proviso to section 11A of the Act along with appropriate interest under section 11AB of the Act

 

1. imposition of penalty of Rs. 18,20,387/- under section 11AC of The Act upon M/s Rawmin.

 

1. imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/-upon M/s Rawmin under Rule 27 of the Rules;

 

• The penalty imposed upon Shri. Bhavin under Rule 26 ofthe Rules is reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/-

 

• The penalty imposed upon M/s. Veljiunder Rule 26 of the Rules is reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/-“

 

1.2 The case of the department is that  the  appellant M/s. Rawmin Mining and Industries Pvt. Ltd. is 100% export oriented unit has cleared 444903.645 MTs of their final product namely Beneficiated Bauxite and stored at the plot allotted to their custom house agent and shipping agent

 

M/s. Velji P & Sons near Porbandar Port. In respect of such clearance no document such as export document, excise invoice or ARE- 1 was issued therefore the department contended that the excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty and without issuing any documents which is liable to confiscation and also liable to excise duty. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated such goods and demanded excise duty and imposed penalty on all the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals), in appeals filed before him upheld Order-In-Original except reducing the penalty in respect of appellant Shri Bhavin Hariharbhai Thanki and M/s. Velji P & Sons. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Appeal the appellant filed the present appeal.

2. Shri Sudhnashu Bissa, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits thatthe demand of excise duty is unlawful and unsustainable as the goods were stored at the plot in the port area and because the appellants were anticipating export order for the said quantity of goods. The goods were not meant for clearance in the DTA and they were infact never diverted to DTA  He submits that the director of the appellant M/s Rawmin Mining  and Industries Pvt. Ltd clearly stated that the goods is for the export purpose and the same had been cleared during 23.05.2007 to 30.09.2008, the same were shown in Annexure 77 daily stock register of the appellant company. The goods were admittedly found stored  at the plot near Porbandar Port. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods were cleared from the factory to the port area for ultimately being exported and never meant to be diverted or sold in the local market. Accordingly, the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 18,20,387/- deserves to be set aside and penalties on all the appellants are also not sustainable.
3. Shri Vijay G. Iyengar, Learned Superintendent (AR), appearing on behalf ofthe Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.

 

4. I have carefully considered thesubmission made by both side and perused the records. I find that there is no dispute in the facts of the case that M/s. Rawmin Mining and Industries  Ltd have cleared their excisable goods outside the factory without payment of duty and without preparing any documents. Therefore, there is clear violation of the Central Excise Rules and procedure. The appellants’ main defence is that the goods were meant for export and subsequently the same have been exported, therefore, no mala fide intention with intent to evade payment of duty. Even if this fact is considered but the violation of the provision is clearly exists that though excisable goods from the factory cannot be cleared without payment of duty and without issuing the invoices , ARE-1 if it is meant for export. Therefore, the goods were rightly confiscated. However, the appellants’ claim is that the goods which were confiscated have been finally exported, on such goods excise duty is not chargeable but in this case the subsequent event of export of goods has not been considered. Accordingly in my considered vie w the matters needs to be re-adjudicated after ascertaining facts about the disposal of the goods whether the same were cleared in DTA or for export.
5. Hence theimpugned order is set aside, the matters are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order preferably within a period of two months from the date of this 

 

 

 

(Pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2023)

 

 

 

 

 

RAMESH NAIR MEMBER (JUDICIAL)