9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 832 - AT - Central ExciseDuty liability - clearance of HSD/LSHF to IOCL Visakhapatnam without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 20 - Revenue s contention that since the assessee was availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on input, they were required to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT Credit on clearance as per the provisions of Rule 6A(4) - Held that - Rule 20(1) extends the facility of removal of excisable goods from the factory of production to a warehouse without payment of duty. Rule 20(3) facilitates responsibility of payment of duty on goods removed from the factory of production by the consignee. Therefore, even if it is argued that the goods were removed from the factory of production without payment of duty to the warehouse, the responsibility to pay duty vests with the consignee i.e. M/s IOCL. The Tribunal, in the similar case of CC Mangalore Vs. MRPL (2009 (3) TMI 904 - CESTAT BANGALORE) has held that the duty liability in such cases is with the consignee. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Liability of payment of duty on clearance of goods without payment under warehousing provisions. 2. Interpretation of Rule 6 and exemption notifications. 3. Responsibility for payment of duty on goods removed from factory to warehouse. 4. Validity of documents and compliance with warehousing procedures. 5. Application of extended period for invoking duty payment. Analysis: 1. The case involved the clearance of goods without payment of duty under warehousing provisions by M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. to M/s IOCL, who further cleared the goods without duty payment. The Revenue contended that the assessee should pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT Credit on clearance as per Rule 6A(4). The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the demand, leading the Revenue to appeal. The Tribunal noted that Rule 20(1) allows removal of excisable goods to a warehouse without duty payment, with the responsibility for payment of duty on the consignee, as held in CC Mangalore Vs. MRPL. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed due to the consignee's liability for duty payment. 2. The dispute involved the interpretation of Rule 6 and exemption notifications. The assessee cleared goods without duty payment under Notification No.64/95-CE and Notification No.47/2001-CE(NT). The Tribunal clarified that Rule 6(3)(a) applied only after 1.3.03, making the Revenue's stance legally incorrect. It distinguished exempted goods under Rule 2(d) from goods cleared under Rule 20 without duty payment. The Tribunal found that the goods were properly re-warehoused, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 3. The responsibility for duty payment on goods removed from the factory to a warehouse rested with the consignee, M/s IOCL, as per Rule 20(3). The Tribunal emphasized that even if goods were cleared without duty payment to the warehouse, the duty payment obligation was on the consignee. The case lacked disputes on document validity and compliance with warehousing procedures, confirming that the goods were cleared following proper procedures. 4. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of non-compliance with transfer procedures or validity of documents related to the clearance and re-warehousing of goods. The goods were properly re-warehoused, and re-warehousing certificates were received by the Central Excise authorities. Consequently, the extended period for invoking duty payment was deemed inapplicable. 5. Considering the discussions and findings, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and dismissed it. The judgment highlighted the consignee's responsibility for duty payment, proper compliance with warehousing procedures, and the absence of grounds to invoke the extended period for duty payment.
|
