https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34863 Absence of a re-warehousing certificate, by itself, did not justify confirmation of duty demand or penalty where receipt of duty-free goods by the consignee was otherwise proved. Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the Board's circular, requires satisfactory proof of receipt when the certificate is unavailable, and the record here contained contemporaneous evidence of delivery, including the consignee's admission, the transporter's confirmation, and supporting Form-H documents. A communication from the anti-evasion authority only indicated that the certificate was not found in the seized record and did not establish that it had never existed. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34863 Absence of a re-warehousing certificate, by itself, did not justify confirmation of duty demand or penalty where receipt of duty-free goods by the consignee was otherwise proved. Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the Board's circular, requires satisfactory proof of receipt when the certificate is unavailable, and the record here contained contemporaneous evidence of delivery, including the consignee's admission, the transporter's confirmation, and supporting Form-H documents. A communication from the anti-evasion authority only indicated that the certificate was not found in the seized record and did not establish that it had never existed. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34863