Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 832 - CESTAT, AHEMDABADDuty liability - clearance of HSD/LSHF to IOCL Visakhapatnam without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 20 - Revenue's contention that since the assessee was availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on input, they were required to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT Credit on clearance as per the provisions of Rule 6A(4) - Held that:- Rule 20(1) extends the facility of removal of excisable goods from the factory of production to a warehouse without payment of duty. Rule 20(3) facilitates responsibility of payment of duty on goods removed from the factory of production by the consignee. Therefore, even if it is argued that the goods were removed from the factory of production without payment of duty to the warehouse, the responsibility to pay duty vests with the consignee i.e. M/s IOCL. The Tribunal, in the similar case of CC Mangalore Vs. MRPL (2009 (3) TMI 904 - CESTAT BANGALORE) has held that the duty liability in such cases is with the consignee. Revenue appeal dismissed.
|