Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 537 - CESTAT NEW DELHILiability of appellant to pay Excise duty - stock of 130.82 metric tonnes of finished goods lying at a place outside the factory of the appellant. According to the appellant, the goods were lying in a godown of the appellant but according to the Department it was lying in a warehouse belonging to the appellant. HELD THAT:- It is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods should be treated as lying in the warehouse. In the first instance, the show cause notice does not even allege that the goods were lying in the warehouse and secondly, the godown could not have been treated as a warehouse. A warehouse has been defined under rule 2(H) of the 2002 Rules to mean any place or premises registered under Rule 9. It is the specific case of the appellant that the premises were not registered as a warehouse. This apart, the show cause notice does not even allege that the premises which the appellant alleges is a godown is a warehouse. The Commissioner has merely drawn a presumption that the premises should be treated as a warehouse. The observations made by the Commissioner that the appellant had not submitted anything to substantiate the date and time when the goods were transferred from the factory to outside godown is also not justified as the show cause notice proceeds on the footing that the goods had been transferred to the godown prior to November 02, 2006. Such being the position, it is not possible to sustain the order dated July 30, 2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal allowed.
|