9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y excisable goods viz. C.I. Roller, I.I. Roller, R.I. Roller and Idler Bkts. on the strength of CT-3 certificate under AR 3A No. 6/98-99, dt. 16-1-99, to a 100% EOU namely M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co., Penab (Mangalore) A/c. Fenner (India) Ltd. The appellant failed to submit proof of re-warehousing certificate of the goods as stipulated under Rule 173N read with Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (b) The original authority, accordingly, confirmed a demand of Rs. 27,39,815/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. 4.The learned advocate for the appellant, inter alia, submits as follows : (i) The goods have been supplied on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under the provisions of Rule 173-N, ibid, it is obligatory on his part to follow the complete procedure in and comply and fulfill all the requirements and conditions laid down in Chapter-VII. The last and every important part of the procedure is to receive the re-warehousing certificate in form of the duplicate of the AR3A duly endorsed by the consignee which has to be retained by the consignor of the excisable goods for his record. Further, in case of failure to receive back the re-warehousing certificate by the consignor, Rule 156B provides that the consignor shall pay the duty leviable on the consignment by a debit in his account-current. It is implicitly clear that the statute has made the consignor responsible if the re-warehousing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstance in the arguments put forth by the appellants. The Tribunal's judgment is also in persona as the basic facts of the case are different from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, I find that the department has rightly acted by demanding duty from the appellants on the excisable goods cleared by them without payment of duty, the receipt of which is not proved. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order." 7.1The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and primary obligation to pay the duty on the goods removed from his factory is on the appellant only. The appellant has removed the goods to a 100% EOU claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/95, dt. 4-1-95. This notification exempts cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e determined by the jurisdictional officers of the appellant unit. The appellant is availing the benefit of exemption and therefore, he is under obligation to fulfil the conditions of the notification. This proof of fulfilment is to be provided to the jurisdictional officers of the appellant. For this purpose, the re-warehousing certificate has been prescribed. Since the appellant, admittedly, not produced the re-warehousing certificate, the duty demand confirmed on -form is sustainable. Certain additional responsibilities fastened on the receiving unit to avail the benefit of the notification does not wipe out the responsibility of the supplying unit to produce the re warehousing certificate. 7.3However, for the given facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
