https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342951 The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling that duty recoverable from excisable goods cleared against a CT3 certificate on an ARE-3 form should be from the consignee, not the consignor, under Rule 20(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand against the appellants was deemed unsustainable, but a penalty of Rs. 5000 under Rule 27 was imposed for non-production of the re-warehousing certificate. The duty demand and interest were set aside, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements in duty recovery cases. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342951 The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling that duty recoverable from excisable goods cleared against a CT3 certificate on an ARE-3 form should be from the consignee, not the consignor, under Rule 20(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand against the appellants was deemed unsustainable, but a penalty of Rs. 5000 under Rule 27 was imposed for non-production of the re-warehousing certificate. The duty demand and interest were set aside, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements in duty recovery cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342951