Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 280 - AT - Central ExciseAppellants could not produce proof of re-warehousing - Appellant had cleared various petroleum products under Rule 173N of CER, 1944 to different warehouses – as per rule the duplicate copy of AR3A (Application for removal) is not produced with endorsement of re-warehousing of the goods cleared – whether absence of entry number in AR3A form submitted by the appellant, is a substantive requirement or not - we are unable to accept the submission of the appellant that entry number is not at all a substantive requirement and without entry number the AR3A submitted by them should have been accepted - We find that this is a very fair offer and the appellants should be given another opportunity to submit details of entry number against which the goods were received in respect of consignment in dispute or produce collateral evidence to show that the quantities shown to have been received as per re-warehousing certificate have actually been received - For this purpose, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority – Since goods are dispatched to re-warehousing all over the country not only belonging to the IOCL but also other oil marketing companies, we find that the penalty need not be imposed on the appellant.
|