9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -warehousing certificate therefore they have to pay the duty - appellant are not liable to pay duty as it is not in dispute that the goods have not been supplied to another EOU - Following decision of SKYRON OVERSEAS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT [2009 (10) TMI 372 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Stay granted. - E/86772/13-Mum - - - Dated:- 10-1-2014 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri Sachin Chitnis, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B S Meena, Addl. Comm (AR) PER : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the impugned demands have been confirmed by the lower authorities on the premise that the appellant has not produced the original copy of the re-warehousing certificate. 2. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods. 7. Heard both sides. 8. As per Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 if the consignor failed to produce re-warehousing certificate in case liability of duty cast on the consignee and not on the consignor. Admittedly, appellant is a consignor. Further in the case of Skyron Overseas (supra) the facts were that the assessee was 100% EOU engaging in the manufacture of yarn. They cleared two consignments to another EOU. The show-cause notice came to be issued to them as they failed to produce re-warehousing certificate therefore they have to pay the duty. The facts of the said case are similar to the facts in hand. In that case, this Tribunal arrived at a decision as under: 5. I have considered the submissions made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that the consignor diverted and sold the goods in local market to some other person and thereby violated the provisions relating to ware housing warehouse, responsibility for payment of duty cannot be fastened on him merely because range officer failed to do his duties enjoined upon him by the Circular of the Board. In view of the above discussions, I find that the appellant cannot be found fault with for non receipt of original copy of re-warehousing certificate duly countersigned by the range officer and it is the responsibility of Superintendent incharge of the consignor unit. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. In the light of the above said decision, I hold that the appellant are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
