The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed an excise duty demand holding that documentary evidence conclusively established that the goods had been exported within the prescribed period and that a delayed certification by the Customs Preventive Officer could not be used to deny export benefits.
The bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) has observed that unexplained administrative delay had unnecessarily triggered avoidable litigation, consuming the time of both the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. The delayed certification could not prejudice an exporter when contemporaneous documentary evidence clearly established timely export.
The dispute arose from the export of goods under ARE-1 No. 38/2012-13 dated July 31, 2012. The exporter had obtained the Bill of Lading on the same day as the clearance of the goods from its factory. However, the Customs Preventive Officer certified the export particulars in Part-B of the ARE-1 only on June 30, 2013—approximately nine months later.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
Relying solely on this delayed certification, the department alleged that the export had not taken place within six months from the date of removal of the goods from the factory, as required under the applicable excise provisions. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued demanding central excise duty on the exported consignment. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld the demand, prompting the assessee to approach the Tribunal.
Appearing for the appellant, the authorised representative argued that the export had, in fact, been completed well within the statutory period. The appellant relied upon multiple contemporaneous documents, including the ARE-1 form containing the Export General Manifest (EGM) number; The Export General Manifest showing that it was filed on September 15, 2012; and The Let Export Order (LEO), evidencing that customs permitted export on August 31, 2012.
According to the appellant, these records clearly established that the goods had been exported within one month from their removal from the factory, rendering the subsequent delay in official certification irrelevant.
The department maintained that the Export General Manifest had not been produced before the lower authorities and therefore justified the confirmation of the excise demand based on the delayed certification appearing in Part-B of the ARE-1.
After examining the Let Export Order, the ARE-1 records and the Export General Manifest, the Tribunal observed that the Let Export Order had been issued on August 31, 2012, which constituted the relevant date of export. It further noted that the EGM had been filed on September 15, 2012 and that this fact had also been recorded by the Customs Preventive Officer in Part-B of the ARE-1.
The Tribunal concluded that these documents conclusively proved that the goods had been exported within one month of their clearance from the factory and well within the prescribed time limit.
In a significant observation, the Tribunal questioned why the Customs Preventive Officer had taken nearly nine months to certify Part-B of the ARE-1 despite the export having already been completed.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the appellant was entitled to all consequential relief available under law.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
