9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 637 - AT - CustomsDemand of duty - goods were to be re-warehoused in the warehouse of the consignee on clearing the goods from the warehouse of the consignor on execution of bond by the consignor. It is also a matter of record that the goods though were cleared from the warehouse of the consignor i.e. respondent for re-warehousing in the warehouse of the consignee before they were received in the warehouse of the consignee at the entrance gate of the premises of the consignee the truck carrying the goods met with an accident and the goods spilled over the ground - The records merely disclose that the goods were cleared from the warehouse of the consignor but were not received in the warehouse of the consignee. Undoubtedly there is a claim of damage to the goods. The Mahazar report does not give detailed description of the alleged damage. It merely states that some of the granite slabs have developed cracks and some were completely damaged appeal succeeds and the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to deal with the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations herein and pass an appropriates order. The appeal stands disposed off.
Issues:
1. Allegation of contravention of customs provisions and duty liability. 2. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules and Warehoused Goods Regulations. 3. Responsibility for payment of duty on goods not received in the warehouse of the consignee. 4. Consideration of Mahazar report and damage to goods. 5. Application of Rule 20(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Comparison with relevant case laws. 7. Decision on the appeal and remand order. Analysis: Issue 1: Allegation of contravention of customs provisions and duty liability The appeal arose from a Show Cause Notice alleging contravention of customs provisions by the respondents for failing to account for and make IUT of polished granite slabs. The Deputy Commissioner dropped the proceedings, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Issue 2: Interpretation of Central Excise Rules and Warehoused Goods Regulations The case involved the interpretation of Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which deals with warehousing provisions, and the Warehoused Goods (Removal) Regulations, 1963, regarding the removal of goods from one warehouse to another. Issue 3: Responsibility for payment of duty on goods not received in the warehouse of the consignee The responsibility for payment of duty on goods removed from one warehouse to another rests with the consignor if the goods are not received in the warehouse of the consignee, as per Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Issue 4: Consideration of Mahazar report and damage to goods The Mahazar report indicated that the goods were damaged in transit and not received by the consignee. The report did not provide detailed information on the extent of damage or the status of the goods after the accident. Issue 5: Application of Rule 20(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 The application of Rule 20(4) was crucial in determining the duty liability in cases where goods are not received in the consignee's warehouse. The failure to prove receipt of goods by the consignee impacted the duty liability of the consignor. Issue 6: Comparison with relevant case laws The case was compared with previous judgments such as Madhav Marbles and Granites Ltd. and the respondent's own case to distinguish the circumstances and outcomes, highlighting the importance of specific facts in each case. Issue 7: Decision on the appeal and remand order The Tribunal quashed the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner, remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The adjudicating authority was directed to expedite the process and provide a compliance report by a specified date. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues, interpretations of relevant laws, and the Tribunal's decision on the appeal.
|
