2012 (10) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - Clearance without warehousing certificate SCN has been issued for clandestinely removal of said goods with intent to evade payment of duty leviable thereon Held that - The jurisdictional officer in charge of the warehouse has duly signed the AR3-A and certified for having received the said goods and for having accounted for in the Bonded Register. Further the goods were cleared under valid CT-3 Certificate issued by the competent authority and the clearance of goods from EOU to another EOU, the Project Authority s certificate was also produced before the Adjudicating Authority and the same was also produced before Appellate Authority. On such a clinching evidence on receipt of goods at EOU and accepted by in-charge of the EOU, the Revenue s appeal is devoid of merits as the grounds of appeal does not contradict the fact of signature of P.O. and nor it is claimed as forged. Appeal decides in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on the Assessee for not producing evidence of warehousing of finished goods to consignee at Kolkatta.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order in Appeal No.154/2006/III(RAJ)/COMMR-(A)/RP/RAJ dated 21/3/2006. The case involved the clearance of scarf pieces made from polyester dyed fabrics without a warehousing certificate, leading to an allegation of clandestine declaration to evade duty payment. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs.19,69,259/-, along with interest and penalty, holding the consignee did not receive the goods and that the appellant diverted them to evade duty. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assessee appealed, providing evidence of re-warehousing in an export-oriented unit, which the First Appellate Authority accepted, setting aside the original order. The Revenue challenged this decision.

The main issue revolved around the duty demand on the Assessee due to the lack of evidence of warehousing of finished goods to the consignee in Kolkatta. The First Appellate Authority found in favor of the Assessee, noting that the goods were received by the consignee based on evidence provided, including signed documents confirming receipt by the consignee's officer. The Revenue failed to present evidence contradicting this finding. The signed A.R.3-A documents indicated receipt by the Export Oriented Unit in Kolkatta, which was accepted by the in-charge. The Revenue's appeal lacked merit as it did not dispute the authenticity of the signatures or provide substantial evidence against the Assessee's claims. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, stating that the Revenue failed to establish a case against it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness and legality of the First Appellate Authority's order. The decision highlighted the importance of factual conclusions regarding receipt of goods and the lack of contradictory evidence presented by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the significance of documented proof in establishing the receipt of goods and upheld the Assessee's position based on the evidence provided during the proceedings.