Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a consignor who applies for transport permit, executes the requisite bond, and removes non-duty-paid excisable goods from one warehouse to another remains liable for duty when the goods are not rewarehoused and the rewarehousing certificate is not produced.
Analysis: The rules governing removal and transport of warehoused goods required the consignor to execute a bond ensuring due arrival and rewarehousing at the destination warehouse. The bond was not discharged merely on delivery to the consignee; discharge depended on production of the rewarehousing certificate within the prescribed time. Where the consignor himself applied for transport, executed the bond, and failed to produce the certificate, the statutory scheme under Rules 153, 156-A, and 156-B fastened liability on him for the goods not rewarehoused. The failure of the consignee to warehouse the goods did not relieve the consignor of this obligation.
Conclusion: The levy of excise duty on the plaintiff was valid and the consignor was rightly held liable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the judgment below upholding the duty demand was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: In the case of duty-paid transport under bond, the consignor remains liable until the statutory rewarehousing certificate is produced and the bond is duly discharged.