AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The following questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this appeal:-
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Form-H certificate obtained from the clients by the respondents, is sufficient to prove the exports made by the Respondents?
(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sale of excisable goods cleared against Form H under Maharashtra Sales-tax Act which is subsequently used as packing material for export consignments, is export, when such an observation of the Tribunal is contrary to the CBEC Circular No. 212/46/95-CX., dated 20th May, 1996 and Circular No. 648/39/2002-CX, dated 25th July, 2002?
(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and hence perverse?
In the present case, the fact that the corrugated boxes manufactured by the assessee have been exported, is not in dispute. The only dispute is that since the Form-''H'' Certificate was furnished beyond the period of six months specified in the Circular No. 212/96, dated 28th May, 1996, whether the exports effected by the assessee could be considered as clearances for home consumption and benefit of Notification No. 8/2011, dated 1st March, 2001 could be denied to the assessee in respect of those exports?
As per the Circular No. 212/96, no doubt that the exporter is required to furnish a photocopy of Form-H to establish proof of export within a period of six months from the date of clearance of the goods from the factory, but the said Circular nowhere states that if the Form-H certificate furnished beyond the period of six months, exports effected by the assessee would be treated as clearance for home consumption. In the facts of the present case, since it is not in dispute that the assessee has in fact effected exports and has furnished photocopy of Form-H certificate, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the CESTAT that the clearance effected for exports cannot be taken as clearance for home consumption. In the result, we see no merits in the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.