https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81933 Where motor vehicle parts were cleared under Notification No. 167/79-C.E. through the Chapter X exemption procedure, the absence of consignee acknowledgment on AR 3A forms did not, by itself, shift duty liability back to the manufacturer. The Tribunal treated AR 3A as procedural and not the statutory foundation of Chapter X, and held that accountal and use of the exempt goods remained the responsibility of the beneficiary-user. On that basis, a demand founded only on non-acknowledgment of the clearance documents was unsustainable against the consignor-manufacturer. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:49:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81933 Where motor vehicle parts were cleared under Notification No. 167/79-C.E. through the Chapter X exemption procedure, the absence of consignee acknowledgment on AR 3A forms did not, by itself, shift duty liability back to the manufacturer. The Tribunal treated AR 3A as procedural and not the statutory foundation of Chapter X, and held that accountal and use of the exempt goods remained the responsibility of the beneficiary-user. On that basis, a demand founded only on non-acknowledgment of the clearance documents was unsustainable against the consignor-manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81933