2017 (2) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - production of proper rewarehousing certificate - evidence of goods reaching consignee s end - CT3 certificate - Held that - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined all these evidences before coming to any conclusion that mere countersignature in the AR3 by the range superintendent is sufficient evidence of receipt of goods at the consignee s end - Therefore, we are not satisfied with the evidences placed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondent about delivery/receipt of the impugned goods at the consignee s factory - duty is recoverable from the respondent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Appellant-Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against OIA, Failure of respondent to establish goods delivery, Demand notice for duty recovery and penalty imposition, Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue's argument on conditional clearance under CT3 certificate, Examination of evidences by Commissioner (Appeals), Recovery of duty based on lack of evidence, Setting aside of impugned order.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the failure of the respondent to establish the delivery of goods. The respondent, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), cleared Knitted Fabrics against CT3 certificate to a consignee but failed to provide proper rewarehousing certificate, leading to a demand notice for duty recovery and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent's appeal based on the rewarehousing certificate endorsements in the AR3A. The Revenue argued that the clearance under CT3 certificate is conditional, requiring proof of goods reaching the consignee. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in accepting the rewarehousing certificate as sufficient evidence. The Revenue highlighted the Circular stating that duty should be recovered in the absence of a rewarehousing certificate.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately examine the evidence, as reports from Central Excise offices indicated no proof of material receipt by the consignee against certain AR3A numbers. The Tribunal noted that the mere countersignature by the range superintendent was not conclusive proof of goods delivery. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that duty recovery is warranted in the absence of sufficient evidence of goods receipt. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed, leading to the recovery of duty from the respondent. The decision was pronounced in the open court after a thorough consideration of the arguments presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the examination of evidence by the authorities, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal principles and precedents.