2009 (10) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to the appellants informing them that since they failed to produce original re-warehousing certificate within 90 days, they have to pay duty on the goods cleared by them without payment of duty. 3. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that as per Rule 20 sub Rule (4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Rules for short) relating to warehousing provisions, which is applicable if the goods dispatched are not received at the destination warehouse, the responsibility for payment of duty shall be upon the consignor. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 20 Rules provides that the responsibility for payment of duty on the goods that are removed from the factory of production to a warehouse, shall be upon the consignee. He also submits that as per B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the consignee's end, which indeed, cannot be there in view of the consignee's acceptance in the form of intimation letter to his supdt. In such a scenario, demand of duty from the appellant in terms of Rule 20 (4) is neither warranted, nor justified in as much as the same can be demanded from the consignor only in case of non-receipt of goods by the consignee." 4. On the other hand, learned SDR submits that if the goods have not been received by the consignee, consignor cannot escape responsibility and it is his responsibility to ensure that the goods have been received by the consignee. If the goods are not warehoused and accounted for by the consignee, consignor's responsibility does not end. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal i....