TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on if any steps were taken to find out from the respective range / division officer of the customers of the Appellants whether said goods have been received by them. Both the notifications in question and the board circulars issued in this regard cast an obligation on the Appellants as well as the department at the end of supplier as well as receiver. The goods in question are removed and received under bond and necessary accounting needs to take place at the supplier as well as receivers end - It is seen that in terms of circular No.579/16/2001 dated 26.06.2001, the superintendent in charge of the consignor of Excisable goods is required to send weekly reminders to the superintendent in charge of the consignee. It is also seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellants did not produce Re-warehousing certificates in respect of such clearances. Show Cause Notices were issued periodically and confirmed by respective authorities as detailed below confirming the duties to the extent of non-production of Re-warehousing certificates and imposing equal penalties. On an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals, Mumbai Zone-II has upheld the orders issued by lower authorities, vide order No YDB/830-834/M-II/2010 dated 19-11/2010. Hence these appeals. Appeal No OIO No Date Amount demanded Rs Amount Confirmed Rs Clearances to E/239/11-Mum 09/SP/ADC/M-II. 09 29-10-2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ARE 1 / ARE 3 were directly sent by the Officer In charge of Customers premises to the Appellants Division/Range of the Appellants; however, no efforts were made by the Department to search the said forms; there is nothing on record to show that the procedure set out in circular dated 26.06.2001 was followed; the department cannot take advantage of their own dereliction of duty to conclude non receipt of re-warehousing certificates; there was also obligation on registered person of the warehouse, to enter in register and to account for the goods, on receipt of the same. He also submitted that no penalty can be imposed and extended period cannot be imposed. 2.1. He relied upon the following cases: (i) U.M. Cables V. UOI (2013 (293) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notification and both circulars cited above. The Appellants are only reiterating that the re-warehousing certificates are not available/traceable. They are not forthcoming to submit whether the said certificates was lost in transit or misplaced and if so any FIR was lodged with relevant authorities. The revenue are not accepting the letters and CA certificates submitted by the Appellants and at the same time the revenue is also not forthcoming on if any steps were taken to find out from the respective range / division officer of the customers of the Appellants whether said goods have been received by them. 4.1. We find that both the notifications in question and the board circulars issued in this regard cast an obligation on the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the goods not received at destination is recovered from the consignor. 4.2. It is seen that in terms of the above the superintendent in charge of the consignor of Excisable goods is required to send weekly reminders to the superintendent in charge of the consignee. It is also seen that the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner shall secure a satisfactory proof of the goods having been received by the consignee / ensure that the duty of excise on the goods not received at the destination is recovered from the consigner. Ongoing through the records of the case, we find that no such efforts have been made by the department. In the entire chain of events officers at the consignees end would certainly be in a position to confirm the receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
