2002 (5) TMI 92 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand for Goods Supply Without Rewarehousing Details

CARRIER AIRCON LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI-III

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. for goods supplied under CT-3 procedure without rewarehousing particulars, emphasizing the ... Demand - Goods cleared under CT-3 certificates Issues involved: Whether duty of excise is payable by M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. in respect of excisable goods manufactured and cleared under CT-3 procedure without rewarehousing particulars.Summary:The appeal by M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. questioned the demand of excise duty for goods supplied to hospitals and 100% Export-Oriented Undertakings (EOU) without proof of rewarehousing. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal for goods to hospitals but confirmed duty demand for EOU supplies citing Rule 156B and Rule 173N of Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that liability shifts to buyers under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. and Chapter X procedures. The Departmental Representative contended that Rule 156B mandates duty payment if rewarehousing Certificate is not received within 90 days. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, emphasizing the consignor's responsibility under Rules 156A and 156B, modified by Rule 173N, regardless of bond execution, and rejected the appeal based on clear provisions and prevention of fraud outlined in Circular No. 87/98.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand on M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. for goods supplied under CT-3 procedure without rewarehousing particulars, emphasizing the consignor's liability under Rules 156A and 156B, modified by Rule 173N, as per Notification No. 1/95-C.E. and Chapter X procedures. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing the consignor's responsibility and prevention of fraud as outlined in Circular No. 87/98, and deemed the decision inapplicable to the present case due to specific conditions under Rule 156A and Rule 156B.