2006 (12) TMI 331 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal arising from common order-in-appeal regarding clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty under AR-3A against CT-3 certificate, duty liability, penalty imposition, limitation period for raising demands.

Analysis:
The case involved eight appeals arising from a common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellants, a 100% EOU, cleared excisable goods without paying duty to other EOUs under AR-3A against CT-3 certificate. The issue was the non-receipt of warehouse certificates within 90 days, making the consignor liable for duty payment as per Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants were served Show Cause Notices for duty recovery, interest, and penalties. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties against the appellant-company and its Director, which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the movement of goods without duty payment under CT-3 Certificate, emphasizing the importance of following procedures and conditions. The Circular dated 26-6-2001 required the consignor to receive the endorsed warehousing certificate within 90 days, failing which duty liability arises. Since the appellants did not receive the necessary documentation, they were held responsible for discharging the duty liability on the cleared goods. The argument of demands being time-barred was dismissed as the limitation period is calculated from the date of filing returns, not the issuance of notices. The duty demand was upheld, but the penalties imposed under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules were set aside for both the appellant-company and its Director.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed Appeal Nos. E/1903, 1905, 1907, and 1909/05 by upholding duty demand but setting aside penalties. Appeal Nos. E/1904, 1906, 1908, and 1910/05 filed by the Director were entirely allowed. The judgment clarified the duty liability, penalty imposition, and the calculation of the limitation period for raising demands, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.