2012 (7) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Re-warehousing - respondents removed the goods against CT-3 under ARE3s, however they failed to produce the re-warehousing certificates in respect of such goods duty demanded along with interest and penalty - respondent before the lower authorities had produced the evidence of re-warehousing these goods which were cleared against ARE-3s - Revenue contended that since there was only paper transaction and no physical movements of the goods had taken place in the instant case, the re-warehousing certificates furnished by the respondents were found to be bogus/ fake Held that - There are no such allegations in the SCN that there was only paper transaction and no physical movements of the goods taken place In the instant case and the re-warehousing certificates furnished by the respondents were bogus/ fake. The law does not permit to go beyond the allegations made in the SCN - In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against order-in-appeal regarding removal of excisable goods under CT-3 to another 100% EOU without re-warehousing certificate.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the Revenue challenging an order-in-appeal regarding the removal of excisable goods by the respondent against CT-3 to another 100% EOU without producing re-warehousing certificates. The issue revolves around the respondent, also a 100% EOU, removing goods against ARE-3s to another EOU without the required documentation. The show cause notice highlighted the absence of re-warehousing certificates for the ARE-3s, leading to duty demand, interest, and penalty. The lower authorities accepted evidence of re-warehousing provided by the respondent, attested by Range Officers of relevant EOUs, and dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice.

The first appellate authority upheld the lower authority's decision, emphasizing the correctness of dropping the proceedings based on the evidence submitted by the respondent. The appellate authority noted that the show cause notice lacked allegations of paper transactions or fake re-warehousing certificates, citing legal precedents that restrict considerations beyond the allegations in the notice. The appellate authority found no infirmity in the lower authority's decision and upheld it as sustainable and correct.

The Revenue's grounds of appeal did not dispute the clearances of goods under CT-3 and ARE-3 or the receipt of goods by the consignee. Consequently, both lower authorities deemed the show cause notice incorrect, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The appellate tribunal found the first appellate authority's order well-reasoned and devoid of any flaws, thereby upholding the decision.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the impugned order in appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the significance of evidence in resolving disputes related to excisable goods' movement between EOUs without proper documentation.