9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tariff Act, 1985 and they had cleared the said goods to another 100% EOU, following the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules 2002, read with Notification No.47/2001-CE(NT), dt.26.06.2001. On the basis of investigation, the Department alleged that the consignee, M/s Ganesh Overseas, Ghaziabad had not received the excisable goods cleared against CT-3 certificates and following AR-3A procedure, in relation to AR-3A Nos.166, 169, 170 and 171 dt.27.02.2002, 15.03.2002, 20.03.2002 and 25.03.2002, respectively. Consequently, Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of the duty involved on the said excisable goods cleared without payment of duty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules 2002 read with relevant Notification had been complied with by them. Analyzing the evidences on record, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned Order took into consideration the correspondences between the officers of Surat Commissionerate and Ghaziabad Commissionerate. The outcome of the analysis is recorded at Para 8.2 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- "8.2 The learned original authority has confirmed the duty on the sole ground that the Appellant has failed to obtain re-warehousing certificate on the AR-3A. However, the learned original authority has ignored the correspondence made between the Range Officer (R.O.) at Surat and R.O. at Ghaziabad which establish that goods have been re-warehoused. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed re-warehoused. The learned original authority has acted in a preconceived manner ignoring the facts in favour of the appellant and thus reached an erroneous decision which, under the facts and circumstances, is not sustainable and needs to be set aside in the interest of justice and fair play." 7. I find force in the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as is evident on going through the letter dt.29.11.2002 of the Central Excise Department annexed at Page 48 of the appeal paper book, where under it has been acknowledged that one Shri Mohan Singh Parmar deputed to visit Ghaziabad division in connection with the earlier letter relating to rewarehousing/receipt of the impugned goods at the consignee s end. On plain reading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
