2017 (1) TMI 590 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - clandestine removal - whether the consignee 100%EOU, M/s Ganesh Overseas had received the quantity of goods mentioned in the respective AR-3A Nos. viz. 166, 169, 170 & 171 at their end, thereby, the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with relevant Notification had been complied with by them? Held that - the goods were rewarehoused as is evident from the records maintained in the Range office - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA No.RKA/81/SRT-I/2009
- Allegation of excisable goods not received by consignee
- Compliance with Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules 2002
- Discrepancy in records maintained by consignee
- Verification and re-warehousing of goods
- Legal requirements for re-warehousing under Rule 20
- Evidence of re-warehousing through AR-3A procedure
- Commissioner (Appeals) decision upheld

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a case where the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding excisable goods cleared to a 100% EOU consignee. The Revenue alleged that the consignee did not receive the goods as per the prescribed procedure, leading to a demand for duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the Respondents, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal.

The main contention raised by the Revenue was that the consignee had not received the excisable goods as claimed, despite records maintained by the consignee indicating receipt and re-warehousing of the goods. The Revenue argued that the consignee's records were private and could not be accepted as evidence of receipt.

On the other hand, the Respondents' Advocate pointed to correspondences between the Surat Commissionerate and the Ghaziabad Company, which supported the conclusion that the goods had indeed been received and re-warehoused by the consignee. The key question revolved around whether the consignee had received the goods as per the relevant AR-3A Nos. and complied with Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.

The Tribunal analyzed the evidence on record, particularly the correspondences between the two Commissionerates and the verification process undertaken. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was based on the acknowledgment of rewarehousing by the Central Excise Department, indicating that the goods had been re-warehoused as per the records maintained in the Range office.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that there was no discrepancy in the reasoning and observations made. It was emphasized that the legal requirement for re-warehousing under Rule 20 had been met, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the goods had been re-warehoused. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.