9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which were supplied by them to several hospitals and 100% Export-Oriented Undertakings (EOU) at nil concessional rate of Central Excise duty against CT-2 and CT-3 Certificates issued by various Range Superintendents; that the said Certificates are issued by the buyers' Range Officer against the bonds executed by the buyers for due receipt and accountability of the goods supplied against such Certificates; that the Adjudicating Authority, under Adjudication Order No. 221-C.E./98, dated 17-9-98, demanded duty of excise as the Appellants did not have the proof of rewarehousing; that on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order No. HKS (964)/CE/2001, dated 21-11-2001, allowed their appeal in respect of goods cleared to hospital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madras v. Madras Radiators Pressings Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 409 (T), wherein it was held as under : "5. An anachronism of this proceeding is that the central excise authorities can proceed against the concession receiver also thus gaining duty twice on the same goods: not a very attractive proposition. The duty is payable by the concessionaire/applicant who was the buyer of the goods. It is not even explained by the Assistant Collector why no proceedings have been made to recover the duty from the receiving factory. But the danger of double receipt of duty is real, because if the buyer-factory is in another Collectorate, the Assistant Collectors at the dispatching end and at the receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 156B of the Central Excise Rules as modified by Rule 173N; that Rule 156B very categorically provides that in case the Certificate of rewarehousing is not received back by the consignor within ninety days of the removal of the goods, the consignor shall pay the duty leviable on the consignment; that as such the demand of duty has been rightly confirmed against the appellants as Certificate of rewarehousing has not been received; that requirement of Rule 156B has not been complied with by them so far. The learned DR also submitted that the condition to the effect that user industry follows the procedure contained in Chapter X, specified in the notification, does not in any way affect the liability of the appellants under Rule 156B of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the learned Advocate that they do not have any liability when the goods are cleared against CT-3. The notification specifically casts the responsibility of following the provisions of Rules 156A and 156B as modified by Rule 173N. It is not material that they have not been asked to execute any bond. As per Rule 156A, as modified by Rule 173N, the consignor shall prepare an application for removal of goods (AR-3) in quadruplicate; he shall send original, duplicate and triplicate application along with the consignment to the destination and quadruplicate copy to the Officer-in-charge of the factory; on arrival of the goods at destination, the consignee shall verify the same and send the original application to the officer-in-charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
