https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1437 The appellant, a scarf manufacturer, faced duty liability allegations for goods cleared to an EOU without payment. The case clarified that duty is only enforceable on the consignor if goods are not received by the consignee, emphasizing adherence to prescribed procedures and consignee acknowledgment. The burden of proof rests on the consignor only if the consignee fails to fulfill obligations. Due to insufficient evidence of non-receipt by the consignee, the duty demand on the consignor was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and highlighting the necessity of following proper procedures for duty imposition. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1437 The appellant, a scarf manufacturer, faced duty liability allegations for goods cleared to an EOU without payment. The case clarified that duty is only enforceable on the consignor if goods are not received by the consignee, emphasizing adherence to prescribed procedures and consignee acknowledgment. The burden of proof rests on the consignor only if the consignee fails to fulfill obligations. Due to insufficient evidence of non-receipt by the consignee, the duty demand on the consignor was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and highlighting the necessity of following proper procedures for duty imposition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1437