9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2003, No.17 dated 27.06.2003 and No.18 dated 04.07.2003 against CT3 No.10 dated 04.06.2003 to M/s.Vrinda Tex-prints N./H. No.06, via Dhhulagori-PS. Sankrali, Dist. Howrah, West Bengal. As no warehousing certificate was received, it was inferred that the goods in question, cleared by the appellant have not been warehoused at the premises of the consignee. 3. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice No.V.RJT-11/AR. Jetpur/ADC/029/2004, alleging that the appellant have clandestinely declared the said goods to the domestic market with an intent to evade payment of duty leviable thereon, the appellant was also asked to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.19,69,259/- should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has proved that the goods cleared from his factory premises, in fact, was received by the consignee. Coming to such a conclusion he set-aside the order in original and allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved by such an order in this appeal. 6. Ld. Departmental representative would reiterate the grounds of appeal in the appeal memorandum which are reproduced here below: The Appellate Authority failed to consider that the superintendent in charge of the assessee unit has never received re-warehousing Certificates from the Customs Authority in charge of consignee unit. The Appellate Authority failed to consider that there was allegation in the Show Cause Notice that in absence of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s established beyond doubt that the assessee has diverted the subject goods to local market and consignee has never received the subject goods. SCN issued was pending for Adjudication. Therefore, it appears that the Appellate Authority wrongly relied upon the documents produced by the assessee and arrived at wrong conclusion that re-warehousing has been established beyond doubt. 7. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. Since the matter is of 2006, we take up the appeal filed by Revenue, in absence of any representation from the Assessee. 8. On perusal of the record, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding demand of the duty on the Assessee on the ground that they were not able to produce evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d find that A.R.3-A s in question are annexed to the appeal memorandum. In the said A.R.3-A s we find that the Customs House Preventive Officer, in-charge of the Export Oriented Unit at Kolkatta has signed the A.R.3-A s in token of having received the same from the consignees at Kolkatta. On such a clinching evidence on receipt of goods at EOU and accepted by in-charge of the EOU, we find that the Revenue s appeal is devoid of merits as the grounds of appeal (as reproduced in paragraph-6) does not contradict the fact of signature of P.O. and nor it is claimed as forged. In facts and circumstances of this case, we find that Revenue has not made out any case against the order of the First Appellate Authority. 10. We hold that the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
