9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1396 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty with Interest and penalties - demand on the ground that the appellant has not been able to produce rewarehousing certificates in respect of 11 ARE s prepared by them indicating that the goods have been cleared to an EOU - Held that - The SCN is not alleging that there was a diversion of goods to another person. In the absence of any such allegation and an acceptance of the fact that consignments were delivered to the consignee, non-production of rewarehousing certificate and consequent demand thereof does not stand scrutiny of law and it has to be held that demand of duty cannot be raised against appellant herein. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Demand of duty based on non-production of rewarehousing certificates for clearances shown in ARE-3s. Analysis: The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 70/2013, dated 12-12-2013. The records revealed that the demand of duty, interest, and penalties were imposed on the appellant due to the non-production of rewarehousing certificates for 11 AREs, indicating clearance to an EOU. The show cause notice alleged non-compliance with Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules regarding the non-production of rewarehousing certificates to support clearances shown in ARE-3s. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands along with interest and penalty despite the consignee confirming non-receipt of the consignments in question related to ARE-3. The adjudicating authority's findings were not contested by the Revenue before the First Appellate Authority, thus attaining finality. Since the consignee confirmed non-receipt, the purpose of rewarehousing certificates was deemed unnecessary. The absence of allegations of diversion of goods and the acknowledgment that consignments were delivered to the consignee rendered the demand of duty based on non-production of rewarehousing certificates legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The order was pronounced and dictated in Open Court on 2-8-2017.
|
