2008 (8) TMI 719 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Demand confirmation due to non-production of re-warehousing certificate within prescribed time period; sufficiency of evidence provided by the appellant; legal obligations of supplier and receiver; validity of Commissioner (Appeals) findings; waiver of pre-deposit based on financial position.

Analysis:
1. The demand of Rs. 2,42,633/- was confirmed against the appellants for not producing the re-warehousing certificate within the specified time frame. The appellant's representative submitted various documents such as transporter receipts, invoices, and sales tax forms to prove that the goods were received by the 100% EOU. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision supporting the argument that only a re-warehousing certificate is not essential to prove re-warehousing.

2. The Revenue argued that the goods were received by the customer on a specific date, and the required intimation to the Department should have been submitted within 24 hours of receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the seized documents, raising doubts about the submission of relevant AR-3A forms.

3. The Tribunal found that legal obligations exist for both the supplier and the receiver regarding the re-warehousing process. The failure of the customer to fulfill obligations led to the non-receipt of the re-warehousing certificate by the appellants. Despite claims of document recovery by the Department, the absence of evidence or explanation led to the affirmation of the Commissioner (Appeals) findings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence over assumptions or presumptions.

4. Regarding the waiver of pre-deposit, the appellant claimed financial hardship based on a loss shown in the balance sheet. However, the Tribunal noted significant investments in shares by the company, indicating a better financial position than portrayed. A pre-deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was directed within a specified timeframe, with recovery of the balance amount stayed pending appeal compliance. The decision highlighted the importance of not using public funds for investments and the need for transparency in financial representations.