ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture HDPE/P.P. bags. They cleared 46,800 Nos. of P.P. bags for export under bond without payment of duty under AR.4s dated 2-5-97 and 4-5-97. They however did not submit the proof of
export in respect of these AR.4s, within the stipulated period and hence a show cause notice dated 13-2-98 was issued to them calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 1,50,500/- being central excise duty on the aforesaid bags should not be recovered from them under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. On considering the reply of the party, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chittorgarh vide his Order dated 28-4-2000 confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,50,500/- on the party under Rule 14A read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them.
2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/- but otherwise rejected the appeal of the party.
3. This is an appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Sh. H.C. Verma, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me. The Original Authority in his order has observed that though the appellants submitted a proof of export in respect of the said AR.4s but it was found that in the relevant invoices issued at the time of clearance of P.P. bags, address of consignee and addressee where the goods were to be delivered are different. Further, the bags cleared had been used for packing of rice from which it is clear that the bags have not been exported directly. Thus, the assessee has not followed the procedure as laid down in Rule 13(l)(a). Further, it is observed that the party filed Shipping Bills and Bills of Lading under which rice bags in P.P. bags are exported and not the document for the export of empty P.P. bags. Hence, the AR. 4s cannot be linked with the goods exported. The operation of the packing of rice in the P.P. bags is carried out in the exporter’s godown/premises and it cannot be confirmed whether the same P.P. bags as mentioned in AR.4s issued by the assessee have been used in the export product or not. Since the goods exported are not empty P.P. bags declared in the said AR.4s and the No. of these AR. 4s have also not been mentioned in the shipping bills, hence the same cannot be considered as proof of export of empty P.P. bags. Further on verification, the same has been confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vide his letter dated 26-4-1999 from where the rice was exported. He has further observed that on verification of the original copies of the relevant shipping bills, it was observed that the name of the supporting manufacturer was written by erasing and over-writing and that on verification from New Customs House, Mumbai, they intimated that the name of the supporting manufacturer has been changed and hand written as Chittor Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., whereas in the drawback copies of these shipping bills, the name of the supporting manufacturer is different. Consequently, the Asstt. Commissioner in his order has rejected the proof of export filed by the party and confirmed the aforesaid amount of duty on them. The lower appellate authority in his order has also observed that the fact that the appellants changed the name of the exporters only in the export promotion copies of the shipping bills and not in the drawback copies of the shipping bills goes to show that the exporters have taken dual advantage one by way of rebate and the other by way of claiming drawback. Hence, he has observed that the order confirming the demand has been correctly passed. In the present appeal,
Sh. K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the two AR.4s in respect of the P.P. bags exported by the appellants have been duly filed by them with the Central Excise authorities in proof of the bonded goods having been duly exported. It is contended that though the P.P. bags in question are exported by packing rice in them but their export is not in dispute and therefore, there is no ground to demand the central excise duty. As regards the over-writing and manipulation of the export documents, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that this has been done by the merchant exporter through which the appellants have exported the P.P. bags and therefore, they cannot be held liable for the same. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is observed from the order of the Original Authority that he has rejected the proof of export filed by the appellants on the following grounds :
(i) In the relevant invoices issued at the time of clearance of P.P. bags, address of consignee and the address where the goods were to be delivered are different. (ii) The bags cleared under the said AR.4s have been used for packing of rice from which it is clear that these bags have not been exported directly and therefore the assessee has not followed the procedure as laid down under Rule 13 (l)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) The party has filed shipping bills and bills of lading under which rice packed in P.P. bags has been exported and not the empty bags. Hence the AR. 4s cannot be linked with the goods exported. (iv) The operation of the packing of rice in the P.P. bags is carried out at the exporter's godown/premises, therefore, it cannot be confirmed whether the P.P. bags as mentioned in the AR. 4s has been used in the export products. (v) On verification from the Asstt. Commissioner, Kandla from where the export has taken place, they have confirmed that the exported goods cannot be related to the impugned AR.4s. (vi) In the export promotion copies of the shipping bills filed by the party, the name of the supporting manufacturer has been changed and over-written as that of the appellant whereas in drawback copies of the shipping bills, the name of the supporting manufacturer is different. This has also been confirmed on verification from the New Customs House, Mumbai from where the drawback has been claimed.
4. The appellants in their present appeal have not contested any of the afore-mentioned findings. In my view therefore, the proof of export submitted by the appellants has rightly not been accepted. Consequently, they have to pay the duty and suffer the penal action for manipulation of the export documents. This appeal has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.