Page 228 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

618 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
5.2 The Learned Counsel further submitted that the core issue to be de-
cided in the present case is whether the impugned beach minerals are to be con-
sidered as legally mined minerals with the documents made available by the ap-
pellant to the Customs. In order to prove that the goods are legally mined, appel-
lant have submitted that they have purchased the impugned goods from M/s.
Transworld Garnett India (P) Ltd. a valid mining lease holder in Andhra Pradesh
under proper bulk permit and transport permits issued by the Department of
Mines and Geology of the State of Andhra Pradesh. This fact has been noted in
the show cause notice that appellants have produced these documents. The said
documents have not discarded by the Customs even while passing the impugned
order. The Learned Counsel further submitted that these goods were transported
and duly rewarehoused truck-wise in their EOU at Vallanvilai, Tamil Nadu and
countersigned by the jurisdictional Customs officer and after reprocessing they
were moved to their licensed additional space at Tuticorin and from their they
were transported to Cochin Port for export. He further submitted that the appel-
lant has produced all the documents running into more than 500 pages along
with appeal memorandum. He further submitted that the Commissioner in spite
of these documents still held that the appellant has not proved that the im-
pugned goods are legally mined and has not produced a certificate of legally
mined minerals from the concerned District Collector. He further submitted that
the Commissioner has not applied his mind and has sought information from the
District Collector, Tirunelveli who has referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu
Government and no clarification was thereafter received by the Commissioner as
observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Learned Counsel
further submitted that Trade Facility No. 13/2016, dated 22-12-2016 of the Co-
chin Custom House was issued after the impugned goods were transported to
Cochin and were exported/about to be exported. The said Trade Facility circular
was not in existence at that time and therefore the said goods did not require the
legally mined certificate from the concerned District Collector as prescribed in
the said circular. He submitted that it is a settled law that ‘law prevalent at rele-
vant time to be applied’ and it cannot be applied retrospectively. For this sub-
mission, he relied upon the decision in the case of National Engineering Industries
v. Commissioner [2008 (227) E.L.T. A166 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court held that
the law prevalent at relevant time is applicable. He further submitted that the
Commissioner in para 31 of the impugned order has admitted that appellants
have filed various documents in proof of the origin of the cargo of Garnet but
still observed that the exporter has failed to produce any transport permit for
transport of goods from their 100% EOU unit at Tirunelveli to Cochin. To counter
this finding of the Commissioner, the Learned Counsel submitted that the im-
pugned goods were received in Tirunelveli from Andhra Pradesh under transit
passes of Mines Department covered under ARES, rewarehoused by the Central
Excise authorities in charge of 100% EOU and from Tirunelveli to Tuticorin un-
der Application for Removal for warehouse to warehouse and then from Tu-
ticorin to Cochin under ARE1 and invoice and other export documents and these
movements are covered under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and are mon-
itored by Customs authorities and the mines authorities transport permits are
not required, in support of this, he relied upon the decision in the case of Shreeji
Transport Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram [2014 (299) E.L.T. 412
(Ker.)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the transport of goods from
one bonded warehouse to another bonded warehouse is done under the proper
control of Customs officers and hence the State Excise authorities had no authori-
ty whatsoever to seize the said consignment and to register a case.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  228