9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has been dismissed. 2. The appellant has a factory at B-25-29, Industrial Estate, Kashipur, and is engaged in the manufacture of M.S Ingots, Casting and Runner/Riser. It had availed area based exemption provided under a notification dated June 10, 2003. The duration of the exemption was effective from November 02, 2006 for a period of ten years up to November 01, 2016. 3. The dispute in this appeal is with regard to the liability of the appellant to pay excise duty on the stock of 130.82 metric tonnes of finished goods lying at a place outside the factory of the appellant. According to the appellant, the goods were lying in a godown of the appellant but according to the Department it was lying in a warehouse belonging to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared from the place of manufacture i.e. from the factory and therefore such goods are eligible for exemption in terms of erstwhile Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the factory was the place of removal. I observe in this regard that the Appellant has even not submitted anything as to when the goods weighing 130.830 MT were transferred from the factory to the outside godown. No document or record has been filed by the Appellant to buttress their argument in this regard. Nobody can be allowed to evade Goverment Revenue in the guise of storage in outside godown when the exemption ceases. The Appellants have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v/s Polyset Corporation 2000 (I 15) ELT 451 [SCJ. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. 12. In view of the above discussions and findings, the impugned Order-in-Original No. 11/Joint Commissioner (in situ)/ Kashipur/2018-19 dated 19.03.2019 is upheld and appeal bearing no. 29/CE/APPL/DDN/19 dated 22.05.2019 filed by M/s Kashi Enterprises, B-25-29, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur District U.S.Nagar Uttrakhand is dismissed." (emphasis supplied) 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that what weighed with the Commissioner (Appeals) was that under rule 4(1) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 [2002 Rules], central excise duty would be payable on the goods either in the factory or in a warehouse on the date of removal and as the appellant had declared stocks in the godown situated outside the factory lying unso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice does not even allege that the goods were lying in the warehouse and secondly, the godown could not have been treated as a warehouse. A warehouse has been defined under rule 2(H) of the 2002 Rules to mean any place or premises registered under Rule 9. It is the specific case of the appellant that the premises were not registered as a warehouse. This apart, the show cause notice does not even allege that the premises which the appellant alleges is a godown is a warehouse. The Commissioner has merely drawn a presumption that the premises should be treated as a warehouse. 10. The observations made by the Commissioner that the appellant had not submitted anything to substantiate the date and time when the goods were transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
