ARORA INTERNATIONAL Vs. CCE, MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed by M/s. Arora International, it was alleged in the show cause notice dated 22.3.1991 that during the period from November, 1990 to January, 1991 the appellants had removed 26814 pairs of leather footwear valued Rs. 35,74,106/ - without payment of central excise duty and without following the prescribed procedure. The demand for Rs. 7,50,562.26 was made. It was pleaded by the appellants that the whole of the quantity of footwear had been exported. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter observed that there was no documentary evidence that the goods in respect of which the central excise duty had been demanded had themselves been exported. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,50,562.26 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -. The appellants had prayed for decision on merits.

(2.) WE have heard Shri V.M. Udhoji, DR, and have gone through the facts on record. The appellants had obtained central excise licence on 8.11.1990 for manufacturing excisable goods. Under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the manufacturer of excisable goods is required to maintain prescribed accounts, to file requisite returns and to pay appropriate central excise duty on clearances. In case of exports, proper central excise duty was payable unless the exports were under the bond procedure.

(3.) THE appellants had obtained a provisional registration certificate as a small scale industrial unit on 10.9.1990. The documents placed on record with regard to exports do not indicate that the goods exported were the same which they had manufactured. Different varieties of the goods had been shown exported under claim for drawback, but no correlation of the goods manufactured as per details in the show cause notice had been established with the documents filed in defence. It is not disputed that the goods referred to in the show cause notice had been manufactured by them. On the basis of the documents for export under claim for drawback, it could not be established that the goods manufactured were the same for which the export documents had been filed.