TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same was also produced before Appellate Authority. On such a clinching evidence on receipt of goods at EOU and accepted by in-charge of the EOU, the Revenue’s appeal is devoid of merits as the grounds of appeal does not contradict the fact of signature of P.O. and nor it is claimed as forged. Appeal decides in favour of assessee - E/391/2006 - A/1359/2012-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 3-9-2012 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, AND MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, JJ. Represented by: Shri K.N. Joshi, A.R.: for the Revenue. Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against the Order in Appeal No.154/2006/III(RAJ)/COMMR-(A)/RP/RAJ dated 21/3/2006 and is filed by the Revenue. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant had cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has also held that the appellant have diverted all the goods covered under subject three AR-3s to other places with sole intention to evade payment of duty leviable thereon. The Adjudicating Authority also held that if the goods dispatched for warehousing or re-warehousing is not re-warehoused, the responsibility for payment of duty shall be upon the consignor. The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed equal penalty of Rs.19,69,259/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by such an order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and submitted evidence in support of their claim regarding re-warehousing of their final products in export oriented unit. The First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned by the Appellate Authority at para No.4 of the OIA. It was also mentioned by the Appellate Authority at Para No.6 of the OIA that the superintendent in charge of the unit has apparently written two letters to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent who has issued CT-3 Certificate for clearance of the said goods. Therefore it was on the records that department was trying to get behind reasons of non-receipt of re-warehousing Certificates from the concerned Authority. The Appellate Authority should have waited for the outcome of the inquiry before setting aside confirmed demand. A bigger inquiry is being conducted in respect of the assessee which revealed that the Vehicle No.HR-37 B 9721, purportedly used by the assessee fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of goods from EOU to another EOU, the Project Authority s certificate was also produced before the Adjudicating Authority and the same was also produced before Appellate Authority. In view of the above facts, the appellant s contention that goods cleared from the factory has been proved and the same have been duly received by the officer in charge of the buyer s unit and proof of re-warehousing has been established beyond doubt whereas the Adjudicating Authority has not given findings to the contrary for the diversion of the goods. 9. On going through the above findings, it can be noticed that the First Appellate Authority has come to a factual conclusion, as regards receipt of the goods by Export Oriented Units in Kolkatta. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
