Page 224 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

206 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

in condoning the procedural of non-filing of the bills of export - Proceedings
remanded to respondent No. 3 to examine the ‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’
produced - RA may accept other documents in lieu of bill of export provided
there is a corroborative evidence/co-relation to ARE-1/Excise attested invoice
bearing the details of advance authorization/file number under which the
goods were removed for discharge of export obligation. [paras 10, 11]
Petitions allowed
CASE CITED
Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Union of India — 2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.) — Relied on ............. [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Jeevan J. Neepalagi, Advocate, for the Respond-
ent.
[Order]. - Petitioner has challenged the decision of the Policy Relaxation
Committee vide PRC. Meeting No. 22/AM 18, dated 24-10-2017 as well as the
decision of the PRC Meeting No. 23/AM 16, dated 23-2-2016 at Annexures-A1
and A2 respectively, inter alia seeking a direction to respondent No. 3 to grant
redemption of advance authorization Nos. 0710065927, dated 14-7-2009,
0710065928, dated 14-7-2009 and 0710068577, dated 1-12-2009 by accepting
ARE-1s and ‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ and other related documents as
proof of export.
2. The petitioner is engaged mainly in manufacture, sale and export of
electrical and electronic products falling under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Cus-
toms Tariff of India and is having IEC No. 0388038047. The petitioner obtained
three advanced authorization numbers viz., 0710065927, dated 14-7-2009,
0710065928, dated 14-7-2009 and 0710068577, dated 1-12-2009 for import of goods
for use in the manufacture of export items. The advance authorizations were is-
sued subject to the condition of fulfilling the export obligation by exporting spec-
ified goods mentioned therein. The petitioner imported various inputs without
payment of customs duty under the said advanced authorizations during the
period from July 2009 to March 2010 and consumed such inputs for manufacture
of the products to be exported and fulfill the export obligation by effecting sup-
plies to SEZ during the relevant period in question. Upon fulfillment of export
obligation, the petitioner filed applications before the respondent No. 3 for re-
demption of the advance authorizations. It transpires that the said application
was duly supported by evidence of supply of goods to SEZ in the form of ARE-
1s, duly endorsed by the authorized Customs Officer at the SEZ unit and ‘Certifi-
cate of Receipt of Supply’ against each of the three advance authorizations speci-
fying the details of the purchaser order number placed from the petitioner, ad-
vance authorizations number and date, ARE-1, Export invoice, product details
etc. However, the office of respondent No. 3 issued three deficiency memos all
dated 17-8-2012 directing submission of bills of export duly certified by the SEZ
Authority for the supplies made to SEZ. In response to the said deficiency mem-
os, petitioner submitted that copies of bills of export are not available with the
petitioner and they have submitted ARE-1s along with certificate issued by Cus-
toms officer of SEZ unit in lieu of bill of export as proof of supplying the goods to
the SEZ unit.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  224