2017 (5) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emanded from the consignor under this procedure, only in a case where goods are diverted without delivery of the goods to the consignee against CT-3 certificate, which is not the case here - demand not sustainable. Penalty - Held that: - The appellants admittedly did not produce re-warehousing certificate, which is requirement under the Rule. The non-production of re-warehousing is contraventio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order. Therefore the appellants are before me. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. However on going through the grounds of appeal, they submitted that the appellants could not produce the re-warehousing certificate as the same was not provided by the consignee. Howev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. 3. Shri S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. Since the re-warehousing certificate was not produced by the appellants, they are liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 20(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. I find that there is no dispute in the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X