Rewarehousing certificate absence alone cannot sustain demand when contemporaneous evidence proves receipt of duty-free goods.

Absence of a re-warehousing certificate, by itself, did not justify confirmation of duty demand or penalty where receipt of duty-free goods by the consignee was otherwise proved. Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the Board's circular, requires satisfactory proof of receipt when the certificate is unavailable, and the record here contained contemporaneous evidence of delivery, including the consignee's admission, the transporter's confirmation, and supporting Form-H documents. A communication from the anti-evasion authority only indicated that the certificate was not found in the seized record and did not establish that it had never existed. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained merely because the re-warehousing certificate was not produced, and whether other contemporaneous evidence was sufficient to establish receipt of the goods by the consignee.

Analysis: Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the Board's circular, requires the department to secure satisfactory proof of receipt by the consignee where the re-warehousing certificate is not available. The non-production of the certificate, in the facts of the case, was not ative because the record contained contemporaneous material showing actual receipt of the goods. The consignee admitted receipt and accounting of the goods, the transporter confirmed delivery, and the Form-H and related documents supported the same. The communication from the anti-evasion authority only stated that the document was not available in the seized record and did not conclusively establish that it had never been seized.

Conclusion: The non-production of the re-warehousing certificate did not justify confirmation of the demand or imposition of penalty, as the receipt of goods by the consignee stood satisfactorily proved by other evidence.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the receipt of duty-free goods by the consignee is satisfactorily proved by contemporaneous evidence, the absence of a re-warehousing certificate alone cannot sustain a demand or penalty.

---