9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order-in-appeal No. KS/292/Daman/2006 dated 31.08.2006. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents but the advocate on record has filed written submission. 3. Heard the learned SDR and perused the record. 4. We find that the issue involved in this case is that the respondent has removed the excisable goods against CT-3 under ARE-3s to another 100% EOU, for further use. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as recorded the following findings:- 7. On perusal of the show cause notice dated 06.5.2004, I find that the respondents removed the goods against CT-3 under ARE3s, however they failed to produce the re-warehousing certificates in respect of such goods which were within the stipulated time as prescribed under Rule 20 Central Excise Rules, 2002 and CBEC Circular No. 579/16/2001-CX dated 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al required to be set-aside. It is also pertinent to mention here that the contention of the appellant is based on letter F.No. DRI/SRU/INT-9/2004-Pt.Dhule dated 18.5.2005 of Assistant Director of DRI, Regional Unit, Surat. The impugned order-in-original is issued on 26.8.2004, whereas the said letter of DRI was issued/ received on 18.5.2005 and, therefore, legally no cognizance thereof can be tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the lower authority and the same deserves to be upheld, being sustainable and correct. 5. On perusal of grounds of appeal of the Revenue, we find that there is no dispute as regards the clearances of the goods under CT-3 and ARE-3 and also no dispute regarding receipt of the said goods at the consignee s place. If that be so, the show cause notice which was issued to the respondent h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
