9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be doubted or penalized for placing the same before the authority - the duty liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant. Penalty - Held that: - there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in any way involved in procurement of fake and forged re-warehousing certificate or in the diversion of the goods. As such, we find no justification for imposition of penalty upon them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/256/2004 - A/261/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 12-2-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e raised against such 100% EOU. For the above proposition, they have also invited attention of the adjudicating authority to C.B.E.C. Circular No. 76/99-Cus., dated 17-11-99, laying down that in case the re-warehousing certificate in respect of the consignment is not received within 90 days, the matter may be referred to jurisdictional Astt. Commissioner of Central Excise of 100% EOU, for issue of demand note on 100% EOU. The said circular does not stand followed by the Commissioner on the ground that this is not a case where re-warehousing certificate has not been received but this is a case where fake re-warehousing certificates have been furnished by the noticee. 5. We find no justifiable reason in the above observation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 437 (Tribunal), it has been held that in case the goods are removed by a manufacturer on receipt of CT-3 certificate to a 100% EOU, and not used as envisaged, action for recovery of the duty liability on exemption availed at the stage of removal from the factory of the manufacturer has to be initiated by the officer incharge of 100% EOU and not that of the manufacturer s factory. Similar is the view taken in case of CCE, Guntur v. Ferro Alloys Corpn. - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 931; CCE, Madras v. Madras Radiators Pressing Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 409 (Tribunal). 6. By following the ratio of above decision, we hold that the duty liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant. As regards the penalty imposed up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
