2011 (6) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Deemed exports - 100% EOU cleared their final product to another 100% EOU against CT-3 certificates - Held that - The appellate authority, by referring to the procedure in Board s Circular No.579/16-2001 dated 16.06.01 held that in as much as the assessee had produced duplicate copy of the certificate, the demand of duty cannot be confirmed against them - He also relied upon a copy of letter dated 08.01.02 issued by the Superintendent of the consignee to the Superintendent of the respondent mentioning that 65.958 meters of goods cleared by the assessee under CT-3 No.12 dated 11.12.01 was received by the consignee M/s. Amrit Impex - Revenue in their memo of appeal have very strongly contested the existenc of the letter dated 08.01.02 written by the Superintendent of the consignee unit - The Revenue is contesting the presence of the said letter in as much as the same was not produced before the original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has not verified the correctness of the same - Revenue s appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding demand of duty and penalties.
2. Dispute over re-warehousing certificate and clearance of final product as deemed exports.
3. Reliance on letter by appellate authority without verification of its correctness.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing, cleared final products to another EOU against CT-3 certificates. A show cause notice was issued for demand of duty, interest, and penalties due to non-receipt of re-warehousing certificate. The original adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of re-warehousing and confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to a circular and a letter from the consignee's Superintendent, setting aside the demand. The Revenue contested the existence of the letter, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: The core of the dispute revolves around the non-verification of the letter dated 08.01.02 by the Commissioner (Appeals) before relying on it. The Revenue argued that the letter was not presented before the original adjudicating authority, questioning its validity. The Appellate Tribunal found this discrepancy crucial and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after verifying the existence and correctness of the letter.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by remanding the case for further examination. The decision highlights the importance of verifying crucial evidence before relying on it in appellate proceedings, ensuring a fair and just determination of disputes related to duty demands and penalties in excise matters.