2007 (8) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OU namely M/s. Kudremukh Iron & Ore Co., Penab (Mangalore) A/c. Fenner (India) Ltd. The appellant failed to submit proof of re-warehousing certificate of the goods as stipulated under Rule 173N read with Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (b) The original authority, accordingly, confirmed a demand of Rs. 27,39,815/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. 4.The learned advocate for the appellant, inter alia, submits as follows : (i)  The goods have been supplied on the strength of CT-3 certificate to a 100% EOU. (ii)Recipient unit is required to fulfil the obligations of discharge of duty in respect of consignment rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he requirements and conditions laid down in Chapter-VII. The last and every important part of the procedure is to receive the re-warehousing certificate in form of the duplicate of the AR3A duly endorsed by the consignee which has to be retained by the consignor of the excisable goods for his record. Further, in case of failure to receive back the re-warehousing certificate by the consignor, Rule 156B provides that the consignor shall pay the duty leviable on the consignment by a debit in his account-current. It is implicitly clear that the statute has made the consignor responsible if the re-warehousing does not take place. And, it is the consignor's responsibility that he obtains the re-warehousing certificate, i.e. the duplicate of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rent from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, I find that the department has rightly acted by demanding duty from the appellants on the excisable goods cleared by them without payment of duty, the receipt of which is not proved. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order." 7.1The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and primary obligation to pay the duty on the goods removed from his factory is on the appellant only. The appellant has removed the goods to a 100% EOU claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/95, dt. 4-1-95. This notification exempts certain specified excisable goods "when brought in connection with the manufacture ..... for export of goods ... out of India into a hundre....