Per Dr. S.L. Peeran : The appellant is required to pre-deposit Rs. 3,38,776/-. Appellant had exported 17 numbers of shovels. They had failed to produce Original ARE-1 as the same had been mis-placed. However they produced collateral evidence in the form of BE (sic - shipping bill). The same has not been accepted on the ground that unless they produced ARE-1 in original/duplicate/triplicate, the proof of export cannot be accepted and hence duty has been demanded on the presumption that goods have not been exported and cleared in the domestic market. Learned counsel submits that the impugned goods were exported. He submits that mere fact of ARE-1 having been misplaced and not produced cannot lead to the conclusion that the goods were cleared in domestic market without payment of duty. He submits that there is no evidence of clandestine removal without payment of duty. He has referred to the documents produced to show the export of the item.

2. Learned DR reiterated the departmental view.

3. We have carefully looked into all the documents. There is also an Inspection Report of Central Excise showing the inspection of the consignment at the factory before the same are left for export. There are supporting documents like shipping bills, invoice, ship mate receipts, bill of lading etc., including foreign remittance certificate issued by the bank. There is no evidence produced by the Revenue with regard to clandestine removal in the domestic market. The stay application is allowed.

4. As the issue lies on a short compass, we take up the appeal. We find that the documents produced by the appellant with regard to the proof of export has not been challenged. As per Board Circular No. 527/23/2000-CX. dated 1.5.2000 [reported in 2000 (38) RLT M23] it has been clarified that attested copy/photocopy of the shipping bill (export promotion copy) if produced to the department as proof of export can be accepted. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Kanwal Engineers, 1996 (16) RLT 199 (CEGAT)=1996 (87) ELT 141 (Tri.) has accepted the document showing the proof of export. The documents in the cited judgment are same as in the present case. The issue is covered in assessee's favour. There is no evidence produced by revenue with regard to removal of goods in the domestic market. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner himself has certified with regard to the export of the goods. Therefore, there is no merit in the impugned order. The same are set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.