TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e if the duplicate copy of AR3A (Application for removal) is not produced with endorsement of re-warehousing of the goods cleared within 90 days or within such extended period as allowed by proper authority, the consignor shall pay duty on demand by proper officer. On the ground that the appellants could not produce proof of re-warehousing in respect of the goods removed, twenty show cause notices came to be issued to the appellant and the total duty demand amounted to Rs. 8,01,28,083/-. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld confirmation of demand to the extent of Rs. 2,13,43,385/- and in respect of the some portion of the demand, the appellants were able to produce proof of re-warehousing and some of other ARE3As wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be held that IOCL has fulfilled legal obligation cast on them to produce re-warehousing certificate within a period of 90 days and their appeal is to be allowed. Further, he also submits that it was also observed that original copy of AR3A which was required to be sent by jurisdictional range officer in-charge of consignee warehouse to the officer in-charge of consignor warehouse has also not been received and this is another ground of rejection of their appeal and he cites the decision of Tribunal in case of M/s. National Impex - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 429 (Tri.-Ahmd.) in support of his contention that obligation to ensure that the intimation is received by jurisdictional range officer in-charge of the consignor is not on the appellant. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... of India. Therefore, they have no intention to evade duty. We also take note of the submission that AR3A forms have all other details except entry number and wherever there was short receipt of petroleum product at the receiving warehouse, such short receipts were recorded and consequent duty liability was discharged by the appellant which shows their bona fide as regards procedure to be followed. However, we are unable to accept the submission of the appellant that entry number is not at all a substantive requirement and without entry number the AR3A submitted by them should have been accepted. In the absence of any verification by the departmental officers and requirement of counter-signing of AR3A form as per rule, full confidence has ....