Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

Avail 50% discount on All CS & CMA subjects for Dec batch . Use coupon code Dec14

Member Strength 1365841 and growing..

CCI ONLINE COACHING NEWS EXPERTS ARTICLES FILES FORUM JOBS FEED E-MAIL EVENTS STUDENTS NOTIFICATIONS MORE
HOME / ARTICLES / EXCISE / IMPACT OF NON SUBMISSION OF EXPORT INTIMATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME IN CASE OF CT-3

Impact of non submission of export intimation

within the prescribed time in case of ct-3

R.P.Singh
posted on 08 November 2014

The perception of law should as it helps the implementation of law effectively. Law is framed
for the assesse in which they will able to pay effortlessly Central Excise duty and follow the all
principal of the Central Excise law. If there is any provision which is not clear and silent then the
benefit of assesse can not be denied. The main purpose of this article to highlight mistakes, which is
being done by the assessee without deliberate intention and consequences thereof.

In the case of Deemed export procedure. When assessee sent goods against the CT-3 to the unit set
up under EOU, EHTP, STP, and BTP scheme eligible to procure the goods under Notification No.
22/2003-C.E Dated 31st March 2003. For the removal of goods against the CT-3, there is some basic
procedure laid down by the Central Excise law, which is required to be followed by the assessee. If
among the several procedures any procedural mistake has been done by the assessee under the
bonafide believe without deliberate intention, then any action taken by the department should not be
punitive. The basic procedure for removal of the goods against the CT-3 as follows:-

Procedure For Warehousing:-

The above said Rules clarify the liability of the consignor and consignee now procedure of the above
said work is that user industries who want to procure goods without payment of duty make an
application for the CT-3. The proper officer shall insure the balance of Bond and issue CT-3 in
quadruplicate. procedure in respect of goods removed from a factory or a warehouse is that the
consignor shall prepare an application form removal of goods from his factory or warehouse to user
industry in quadruplicate in the from ARE-3 and send the original, duplicate and triplicate copies of
ARE-3 along with the goods to the user industry. The consignor shall send quadruplicate copy of the
application to the superintendent-in-charge of this factory or warehouse within twenty four hours of
removal of the consignment. On arrival of the goods the user industry shall verify the goods and
intimate regarding removal of goods with all three copies to the superintendent. The superintendent
of the user industry depute a bond officer who verify the goods and submit a report to the
superintendent. The superintendent shall send original copy of ARE-3 to superintendent of
consignor, duplicate to the consignor and triplicate copy to the user-industry. The next provision
regarding failure to receive a warehousing certificate, if the consignor did not receive warehousing
certificate within ninety days of the removal, the consignor shall intimate the superintendent-
in-charge of his factory or ware house. If the superintendent-in-charge of the consignor of the goods
does not receive the original copy application ARE-3 with certificate of warehousing, duly endorsed
by the user industry and superintendent within ninety days of the removal of the goods. The
superintendent must be issued weekly reminders to the superintendent of user industry. Despite of
such reminders, the original copies not received within a further period of sixty days of the expiry of
the ninety days period, the superintendent of the consignor shall inform his Assistant/deputy
Commissioner.

1 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

The above mentioned procedure clarified the law laid down for the removal of goods under the
warehousing provision. Now, question is that if consignor has committed any mistake such as late
submission of quadruplicate copy of the ARE-3 to the superintendent-in-charge of this factory or
warehouse due to unavoidable reasons and also failed to produce original re-warehousing certificate
within 90 days. Then what should be the impact of that unintentional mistake?

Law is silent in this respect. Central Excise Law no where it is mentioned that if the consignor has
not followed above said procedure then under which provision they may be penalized and what
would be the punitive action against the consignor. Although Commissioner of Central excise,
Pune-II, issued trade notice No. 63/2007 dated 06.12.2007 parallel Commissioner of Central Excise,
Dibrugarh, has also issued Trade Notice No. 20/2007, dated 23.11.2007 [2007 (218) E.L.T. (T48)] in
which it is laid down that attestation of quintuplicate copy of ARE-3 by range office for availing
export benefit. But the above said trade notice has not been explained about the penal action for the
late submission of the warehousing certificate and ARE-3 copy. Now the question is whether:-

i. Assesseee’s benefit can be denied on the basis that they could not submit ARE-3 within 24 hours
of removal of consignment.

ii. Asseessee’s has to pay duty on the goods cleared by them without payment of duty because they
have failed to produce original re-warehousing certificate within 90 days.

iii. Department should issue show cause notice to the consignor informing that since they failed to
submit ARE-3 within 24 hours of removal of consignment and has not produce original
re-warehousing certificate within 90 days, they have to pay duty on the goods cleared by them
without payment of duty.

The above said mistake such as late submission of ARE-3 and warehousing certificate are procedural
mistake and it may be occurred due several reasons i.e. missing of the Copy, communication
problem, lack of knowledge, lack of factory staff, etc and the Consignor has right to explain the
reason of above said mistake.

These are the procedural mistakes and it is settled position of law that substantial benefit cannot be
denied on the ground of procedural mistake.

As per Board Circular No. 579/16/2001-CX., dated 26-6-2001, the consignor is required to receive
duplicate copies of warehousing certificate duly endorsed by the consignee within 90 days of
removal of goods. In this circular the main question is that whether goods reached destination or
not? And if receipt of goods is not doubted then benefit cannot be denied.

So, Department should not be suppose to deny the benefit and Show Cause Notice towards payment
of central excise duty on the removal of excisable goods against the CT-3.

These terms has been clarified many times by the Judiciary in which it clearly held that if receiving
of the goods is not in dispute then benefit of the assessee can not be denied merely on the above said
ground only.

Collector of C.Ex., Bangalore Vs Motor industries company limited [1998(98) E.L.T 504 (
Tribunal). The relevant portion of the above said judgment as follows:-

“What was relevant to find out was whether or not the goods removed from the consigner’s end had
been received by the consignee. The Revenue have no where contended that these goods which
moved under Chapter X procedure for specified industrial purposes were diverted enroute or were
not received in the consignee’s factory. Since the receipt of goods by the consignee factory is not
disputed, we do not find any merit in the Revenue appeal which seeks to introduce provisions of
Chapter VII in Chapter X. Chapter X is a self-contained scheme and is covered under Rules 192 to

2 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

196BB”.

The same thing accepted by the Hon’ble Tri-Ahmdabad and It was held that in the matter of Skyron
overseas Vs. Commissioner of C.,Ex., Surat [2010(252) E.L.T 293 (Tri-Ahmd)

“A show cause notice was issued to the appellants informing them that since they failed to produce
original re-warehousing certificate within 90 days, they have to pay duty on the goods cleared by
them without payment of duty.

As rightly pointed out by the learned advocate show cause notice was issued on the ground that
consignor unit (appellant) failed to produce the original copy of re-warehousing certificate
countersigned by Supdt. According to procedure, AR3A is required to be prepared in quadruplicate.
Original, duplicate and triplicate copies of AR3A are sent with goods to the consignee. Consignor
has to submit the quadruplicate copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned with the
supplier unit. On receipt of goods, consignee shall send original copy to Superintendent in charge of
his, duplicate to the supplier and keep triplicate for his record. Jurisdictional range officer incharge
of the supplier unit is required to undertake correspondence if he does not receive original copy of
AR3A duly endorsed by the range officer incharge of consignor unit and ensure that either goods
have been received by the consignee and initiate action for recovery of duty. From the reading of the
Rule 20 relating to warehousing provisions and the Board’s Circular cited by the learned advocate, it
becomes clear that responsibility of the consignor ends once he receives duplicate copy of the AR3A
and informs range officer. Once he receives duplicate copy endorsed by consignor his statutory
obligation is over unless it is proved that the consignor himself diverted the goods or was
responsible for diversion. In the absence of any evidence from the records to show that the consignor
diverted and sold the goods in local market to some other person and thereby violated the provisions
relating to ware housing warehouse, responsibility for payment of duty cannot be fastened on him
merely because range officer failed to do his duties enjoined upon him by the Circular of the Board.
In view of the above discussions, I find that the appellant cannot be found fault with for non receipt
of original copy of re-warehousing certificate duly countersigned by the range officer and it is the
responsibility of Superintendent incharge of the consignor unit. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with
consequential relief to the appellants”.

The above said decision has been referred by the CESTAT Ahemdabad in the matter of [Nayana
Textiles Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, 2010 (261) E.L.T. 181 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]

So, the conclusion of this observation is that law has been farmed for justice or with sole intention to
run the administration effortlessly. The authorities are required to see whether mistake has been done
with deliberate intention or without deliberate intention. If any mistake which has been done without
deliberate intention, then nobody should be penalized for unintentional mistakes. Since the law has
been silent in this regard and there is no specific provision regarding aforesaid procedural mistakes,
it can be safely presumed that intention of law is not to penalise the assesse. .

Thanking you

R.P.Singh, Advocate

Published in Excise
Print this article
Source : ARE-3 Procedure, Export
Other Articles by - R.P.Singh Views : 2965

0 Comments for this Article

You need to be logged in to post comment

3 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

Budget 2014 - Impact Analysis for Indirect Taxes

Union Budget - An impact on common Indian
The Union Budget impact on the Indian Stock Market
Simplified Approach to Export Of Services Rules
A Brief synopsis on Export Oriented Units
Indirect Tax Impact - Tax Audit - AY 14-15
Shifting of registered office from one ROC to another ROC within the same state
Economic Impact of Proposed River Linking Project
Letter from a SME Entrepreneur on impact of MGT 14
International business II: Export Procedure

View other articles from this category

Amendment in assessment under Punjab VAT Act, 2005

Arye wah! Instructions to reduce hardship of taxpayer in Income Tax Scrutiny
How To Find The Right Partner For Your New CA Firm
Valuation of physician sample manufactured on contract
Technologies for new age CAs & MBAs
A clear vision - If CA is a regular course
Allotment of Equity Shares as per Companies Act, 2013
Default in payment of excise duty: Meaning and consequences
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed time in case of ct-3
Committees and Mechanism to be formed under CA, 2013

Submit Articles
Browse by Category
Recent Comments
Popular Articles

GO

4 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

Important Amendments for Nov 14 CA

Final in Service Tax
Changes in auditor appointment
Updates under Central Excise & Service
Tax
Point of Taxation Rules
Crossroads: What after the CA degree?
Requirement of filling Service Tax
Returns by Small Service Providers
Right issue of shares under Companies
Act, 2013
Update on Indirect Tax - Service Tax
and Excise for the month of Nov 2014
How to answer the interview question?
What are your strength
What should I opt in Articleship - Audit
or Tax

Subscribe to Articles Feed

5 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27
Impact of non submission of export intimation within the prescribed ti... http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/impact-of-non-submission-of-expo...

Submit Query

Income Tax
Audit
Students
Accounts
Custom
VAT
Career
Service Tax
Corporate Law
Info Technology
Excise
Shares & Stock
Exams
LAW
Professional Resource
Union Budget
Others
Taxpayers

Subscribe
Our Network Sites
About
We are Hiring
Advertise
Terms of Use

Disclaimer
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

© 2014 CAclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Report Abuse

6 of 6 10/11/2014 16:27