Union of India vs Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd.

The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Mumbai-1 has rejected a claim of rebate made by the respondent by an order dated 8 February 2007. The claim was rejected on the ground that it was not possible to identify and corelate the consignment of sugar exported with the goods which were cleared from the factory on payment of duty. In appeal, however, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) reversed the order of the Adjudicating Authority and by his order allowed the claim. The order of the Commissioner (Appeal) has been confirmed by the Govt. of India in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the Adjudicating Authority had placed reliance on Notification 19/2004, dated 6 September 2004 in holding that the assessee had failed to export goods directly from the premises of the manufacturer. However, by a subsequent Circular of the Board dated 30 January 2007 it has been clarified that the condition of direct export would include all such goods which are clearly identifiable or co relatable to the goods exported and cleared from the factory on payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of the findings came to the conclusion that the goods which were cleared from the factory in question on payment of duty were actually exported. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the goods were exported on payment of Central Excise duty directly from the place of the manufacture; the goods were carried by truck from the premises of the manufacturer and loaded in railway wagons and then unloaded at the Port. The goods were exported under the supervision of the Customs Authorities. The Commissioner relied upon a certificate issued by the Central Excise Range Superintendent regarding the payment of duty by the unit for the goods which were cleared from the factory under Central Excise invoices showing the name of the assessee as the consignee.

The Revisional Authority has essentially confirmed this finding of fact in Paragraph 8 of its impugned order. The Revisional Authority has noted that the railway receipt and transport documents submitted by the assessee in support of its contention show that the consignment of sugar was transported directly from the factory to the port premises. Moreover, the Range Superintendent had confirmed the payment of duty of the goods by the relevant Central Excise invoice. The Revisional Authority has also decided that though the sugar had been cleared for sale in the open market at the relevant time, the clarification issued by DGFT on 16 March 2006 did not contain any restriction on export since sugar was freely exportable.

In view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the authorities below, we see no merit in this petition. The finding is based on the material on record and does not suffer from perversity or error. The petition, is accordingly, dismissed.