9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has alleged that the notification 22/03 dated 31.03.2003 provides exemption to all goods specified in Annexure I to the said notification, when brought in a Export oriented unit/ software technology park/ electronics hardware technology park, in connection with the processing mentioned in the notification from payment of whole of the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also the additional duty of excise. The appellant cleared the goods without payment of duty to their customer M/s. CFC India Services Pvt. Ltd. against CT-3 certificate in favour of the appellant to enable them to claim the benefit under notification 22/03. Further, in view of the conditions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the customer, M/s. CFC India Services P. Ltd. dated 17.05.2010 directing them to pay the duty of Rs. 3,65,856/- along with interest on the ground that the capital goods (Purafil Media Parts of Air handling units) were purchased by them against CT-3 certificate dated 31.03.2007 from appellant but the same were not re-warehoused by them and hence they have violated the provisions of said notification dated 31.03.2003 as the said capital goods were not warehoused within 90 days of the issue of CT-3 certificate. Thereafter M/s. CFC India Services P. Ltd. vide their letter dated 26.05.2010 stated that they were ready to pay the required duty with interest and thereafter the appellant deposited Rs. 3,65,856/- and Rs. 1,76,212/- respectively t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that the appellants cannot be held liable for failure of the consignee to provide them with the warehousing certificate and therefore, the demand of duty cannot be confirmed against the appellants. She further cited the case of Skyron Overseas v/s. CCE - 2010 (252) ELT 293 (Tri. Ahmd.) wherein the Honble Tribunal held that it is the responsibility of the Superintendent-in-Charge of the consignee unit and consignor cannot be faulted with for non-receipt of original copy of the warehousing certificate duly countersigned by the Range Officer. She also submitted that as per Condition No. 5 to Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 which requires the manufacturer to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. Commissioner of Customs issued a letter to M/s. CFC India Services P. Ltd. demanding the duty and interest for violation of the conditions of notification 22/03 and the appellants customer M/s. CFC India Services P. Ltd. has paid the entire duty of excise along with interest to the department and thereafter with regard to the same consignment the department cannot ask the appellant to pay the duty as the department cannot recover the duty twice for the same consignment and moreover as per the sub-clause (3) of Rule 20 it is the responsibility of the buyer to pay the duty and in the absence of non-payment, recovery proceedings can be initiated against the buyer. In this case the said duty was recovered. Therefore, I find that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
