2012 (10) TMI 142 - HC - Customs

Whether when consignment had reached the bonded warehouse of the consignee, there was no liability to pay duty on the part of the consignor Held that - Question for consideration is merely because the consignee did not issue the certificate as contemplated under the law showing that the goods are received from the assessee and is stored in their warehouse and hence, Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 20 of the Rules is attracted - they were satisfied that the assessee has transported the consigned goods to the consignee and it reached the bonded warehouse of the consignee - Tribunal proceeds on the assumption that the material on record do not disclose that the consignment reached its destination. It also do not disclose that the consignment came to the consignee and therefore it is to be held that there is violation of provisions and Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 20 attracts the provisions - order passed by the Tribunal set-aside

Summary

Issues:
Interference with finding of fact regarding consignment reaching bonded warehouse and liability to pay duty by consignor.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Finding of fact regarding consignment reaching bonded warehouse
The case involves a dispute where the Tribunal interfered with the finding of fact by the authorities below that the consignment had reached the bonded warehouse of the consignee, thus absolving the consignor from the liability to pay duty. The appellant, an export-oriented unit, transported polished granite slabs to another export-oriented unit, but the consignment met with an accident, leading to the destruction of the goods. The consignee did not issue a certificate confirming receipt in their warehouse. The authorities held that no duty was payable by the consignor based on Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the records did not prove complete abandonment of the goods and that the consignor was liable to pay duty as the receipt of goods in the consignee's warehouse was a prerequisite, which was not established. The Tribunal remanded the matter for calculating duty and issuing a demand notice.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules
Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules was central to the dispute. Sub-rule (4) specifies that if goods dispatched for warehousing are not received in the warehouse, the duty payment responsibility falls on the consignor. The appellant contended that since the consignee did not issue the required certificate confirming receipt and storage in their warehouse, the consignor should not be liable to pay duty. The appellant argued that the consignment had reached the consignee's bonded warehouse, as evidenced by the Mahazar report, and therefore, no duty was due. The authorities and the First Appellate Authority had accepted this argument, but the Tribunal disagreed, leading to the appeal.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding was contrary to the material on record and statutory provisions. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant, ruling that the consignor was not liable to pay duty as the consignment had reached the consignee's bonded warehouse. The orders of the First Appellate Authority were also set aside, with no costs awarded.