Appellant prevails in excise duty case, avoids double recovery. Tribunal rules against department.

The appellant successfully argued against double recovery of excise duty for the same consignment, emphasizing that the department cannot demand duty twice for the cleared products. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that since the consignee had already paid the duty and interest, the appellant cannot be held liable again. Additionally, the extended period of limitation for issuing the show-cause notice beyond one year was deemed time-barred, as there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 22/03 dated 31.03.2003 regarding exemption from excise duty for goods supplied to specific units.
- Liability of the appellant for payment of excise duty when consignee fails to provide re-warehousing certificate within 90 days.
- Application of Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in determining duty payment responsibility.
- Invocation of extended period of limitation for issuing show-cause notice beyond one year.
- Double recovery of duty for the same consignment.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 22/03: The appellant contended that they correctly cleared final products to a customer without excise duty payment by availing the benefit of the said notification. The customer later paid the duty and interest as directed by the Asst. Commissioner, which the department accepted. Citing Indian Oil Corporation v. CCE, the appellant argued against double recovery of duty, emphasizing that the department cannot demand duty twice for the same clearance.

2. Liability for non-receipt of re-warehousing certificate: The department argued that the appellant should pay duty as the consignee failed to provide the certificate within 90 days. However, the Tribunal found that since the customer already paid the duty and interest for the same consignment, the appellant cannot be held liable again. Rule 20(3) places duty payment responsibility on the consignee, and recovery proceedings can be initiated against the buyer in case of non-payment.

3. Application of Central Excise Rules: The appellant highlighted Rule 20, stating that the consignor is not at fault for non-receipt of the warehousing certificate. They emphasized that the consignee's responsibility for duty payment is clear under Rule 20(3) and (4), supporting their argument against liability.

4. Extended period of limitation: The appellant argued that the show-cause notice issued beyond one year for a clearance made in May 2007 is time-barred. They contended that the extended period cannot be invoked due to the absence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment.

5. Double recovery of duty: The Tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred and not sustainable in law. As the department failed to prove suppression of facts, the appellant was not liable for duty payment. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any.

---