EOU absolved of duty payment due to missing re-warehousing certificate; Tribunal rules in favor of appellant

The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in an appeal against confirmed demands for missing re-warehousing certificate. Relying on the precedent set in Skyron Overseas case, it was established that duty liability does not fall on the consignor if no evidence of diversion exists. As the goods were not supplied to another EOU, the appellant was absolved of duty payment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief, with the stay petition disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against confirmed demands due to missing re-warehousing certificate.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, appealed against demands confirmed by lower authorities for not producing the original re-warehousing certificate. The appellant argued that under Rule 20(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if the certificate is not produced, the liability falls on the consignee, not the consignor. Citing the case of Skyron Overseas vs. CCE 2010 (252) ELT 293, the appellant contended that responsibility for the certificate lies with the consignee's Superintendent, absolving the appellant of duty payment.

The respondent contended that it is the duty of the consignor to file the re-warehousing certificate within 90 days of goods dispatch. However, Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 states that if the consignor fails to produce the certificate, the duty liability shifts to the consignee. The Tribunal referred to the Skyron Overseas case where a similar issue arose. In that case, it was established that once the consignor receives the duplicate copy of the certificate and informs the range officer, their statutory obligation ends unless evidence proves diversion of goods. The responsibility for payment of duty cannot be placed on the consignor if no evidence of diversion exists.

Based on the Skyron Overseas case precedent, the Tribunal held that the appellant cannot be held liable for duty payment as the goods were not supplied to another EOU. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.

---