Page 127 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RAJHANS IMPEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 349

EOU’s which were returned by the said recipient duly endorsed by their jurisdic-
tional Range Superintendent.
4.4 It is alleged that on 5-9-2013, the officers from the Office of Direc-
torate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter be referred to as “DRI”) visited the
factory premises and impounded certain documents including statutory record,
copy of ARE-3 etc. That DRI recorded statement of authorized persons of the
aforesaid 100% EOU as well as Director. It is alleged that the EOUs have accept-
ed the fact of receipt of material in their factory premises and recorded that the
said material is duly accounted for in their statutory record. It is contended that
the transporters and the truck owners have also supported the same. It is alleged
that the DRI had also requested jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner’s to certify
whether the material covered under the respective ARE-3 were physically veri-
fied by the Range Officer or not. That in response to the same, respective jurisdic-
tional Assistant Commissioner certified that the goods were covered under the
respective ARE-3’s are received by the said 100% EOU but have not been physi-
cally verified. It is further contended that the goods sold to respective units were
brass rods/hollow rods of various length which cannot be packed in the box but
can only be covered by jute clothes and supplied to the respective 100% EOU. It
is contended that the DRI has, on relying on statements of the some owners of
the truck, issued show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods exported
under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 in addition to the recovery of cus-
tom duty on imported material as also Central Excise Duty on the material
cleared with payment of duty under valid duty paying documents to the tune of
Rs. 1,26,99,092/- and Rs. 90,59,957/- along with interest and penalty. The said
show cause notice was also proposed penalty on the Director as well as respec-
tive EOUs.
4.5 It is contended that such show cause notice was replied and re-
quested to cross-examine the owners of the trucks and cross-examination was
carried out and during the course of such cross-examination, the transporters
have accepted that the material was transported.
4.6 It is contended that during the course of personal hearing attention
was drawn to various evidence regarding transportation of the goods and receipt
of the goods by 100% EOU and the entry thereof is in the statutory record and
regarding payment of material is also made by account payee cheque. On the
issue of demand of Central Excise Duty attention was drawn to the fact that the
department has demanded duty equivalent to the amount claimed as refund
from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and not on the transac-
tion value and since, such refund is not sanctioned either by Custom Department
or by Central Excise Department, such proposal is without jurisdiction. It is fur-
ther alleged that the attention was also drawn to the letter dated 27-12-2013 is-
sued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamnagar wherein it is
clarified that no refund/rebate of duty paid on supplies to the EOU is sanctioned
by them.
4.7 It is further submitted that the attention was also drawn to the fact
that the petitioner had also cleared goods to M/s. Labotech Miscroscopes India
(P) Ltd. and M/s. Labotorn Instruments Ltd. Ambala, 100% EOU under cover of
CT-3 or without CT-3 but with payment of duty. According to the petitioners, the
show cause notice under consideration is issued only because the concerned
Range Officer has not physically verified the goods and for such fault on the part
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  127