9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2004 dated 28-6-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 3,40,151/- as they had not produced the re-warehousing certificate within the time limit specified in Rule 156A(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri R. Krishnanan, learned Advocate, submitted that out of the total duty confirmed, the Appellants are not disputing the duty amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have submitted the re-warehousing particulars after the stipulated period of 90 days; that the delay in obtaining the re-warehousing certificate cannot stand in the way of accepting the fact of re-warehousing; that the spirit of the Rule is that the goods cleared without payment of duty against CT-3 should be warehoused and the period prescribed for this purpose cannot be so strictly construed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the consequences are denial of benefits under the Notification. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As the Appellants are not disputing the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,363/- the same is upheld. The Revenue has not rebutted the contention of the Appellants that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the clearance of the goods to the hospital without payment of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied to a 100% E.O.U. is that the manufacturer of the goods follows the procedure contained in Rules 156A and 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 156B provides that in case the certificate of re-warehousing is not received back by the consigner within 90 days of the removal of the goods or such extended period as the Commissioner may allow the consigner shall pay the duty leviable on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
