Case: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Vs. TEX-AGE

1. The respondents are engaged in the export of ready made garments. It has been making those exports from time to time. These exports were made after fulfilling all the legal requirements. It is also not in dispute that against those exports entire remittance was received by the respondents. The respondents have been claiming duty drawback and other benefits in respect of these exports which were also released to the respondents. 2. However, on the basis of the alleged intelligence received in the Bombay Zonal Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that the exporter was engaged in the fraudulent exports of low quality ready made garments from Nhava Sheva Sea Port by resorting to overvaluations in order to claim undue export benefits, investigations were carried out and on that basis, show cause notice was issued to the respondents which resulted in imposition of penalty etc. The respondents filed appeal there against before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT allowed this appeal thereby quashing the deduction and the penalties etc. [2008 (221) E.L.T. 395 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. This judgment of CESTAT is under challenge in these appeals. 3. A perusal of the judgment of the CESTAT shows that the entire material placed before it has been discussed and on that basis, a finding of fact is arrived at to the extent that the allegations of flow back of the remittances by way of Hawala could not be proved by the Department. It is further recorded by the CESTAT that the invoices etc. which were raised of particular amounts were duly checked by the Department at the time when the exports were being made. However, the entire amount as reflected in the said invoices was received by the respondents. 4. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact and in the absence of any evidence to show that the money was remitted by way of Hawala, we are of the opinion that the case of over-invoicing has not been established by the Department.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]3. A perusal of the judgment of the CESTAT shows that the entire material placed before it has been discussed and on that basis, a finding of fact is arrived at to the extent that the allegations of flow back of the remittances by way of Hawala could not be proved by the Department. It is further recorded by the CESTAT that the invoices etc. which were raised of particular amounts were duly checked by the Department at the time when the exports were being made. However, the entire amount as reflected in the said invoices was received by the respondents.4. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact and in the absence of any evidence to show that the money was remitted by way of Hawala, we are of the opinion that the case of over-invoicing has not been established by the Department.