Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Filatex India Ltd Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI

2015 (9) TMI 675 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Cleared the goods under the cover of ARE-3 on the strength of the CT-3 certificates without payment of duty - Partially Oriented Yarn - failure to produce warehousing certificates in respect of 13 ARE 3s - Imposition of penalty and interest - Held that:- Appellants cleared the goods under the cover of ARE-3 on the strength of the CT-3 certificates without payment of duty issued by M/s. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. - Tribunal in the case of Skyron Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods by the said Company. It is also noted that there is no material available on record that the goods were diverted in the local market by the appellant. Hence, duty liability cannot be raised on the appellant. - impugned order cannot be sustained and it is set-aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : E/1045/2009, Application No : E/Extn/13735/2014 - Order No. A/10696 / 2015 - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant : Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 13 Form ARE-3, without payment of duty against CT-3 Certificates issued by the said Company during the period from 03.06.2004 to 13.06.2004. The Central Excise Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) during their investigation on 15.06.2004 to the said Company seized several records. According to the appellant, in view of the seizure of the documents by DGCEI in the said Company, ARE 3s could not be countersigned by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

os. ARE-3. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no dispute that the goods were received by the said Company as evident from their letter dated 07.10.2004. The Learned Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the correspondences with the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise to substantiate the goods were received by the M/s. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. He submits that when it is established .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ket. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant has failed to produce warehousing certificate, as required under Rule, 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As per Board Circular No. 579/16/2001-CX dated 26.06.2010, the appellant is liable to pay duty if the warehousing certificate is not received within 90 days. The Adjudicating Authority had already dropped the demand, where th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellant following the procedure under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is reproduced below:- 20. Warehousing Provisions (1) The Central Government may by notification, extend the facility of removal of any excisable goods from the factory of production to a warehouse, or from one warehouse to another warehouse without payment of duty. (2) The facility under sub-rule (1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to another warehouse shall be upon the consignee. (4) If the goods dispatched for warehousing or re-warehousing are not received in the warehouse, the responsibility for payment of duty shall be upon the consignor. 6. By letter dated 07.10.2004, the said Company informed the appellant that the original ARE-3 were seized by the Central Excise Authority during their investigation on 15.06.2004 alongwith several other documents including warehousing register. They could locate photocopies of 3 ARE- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ivered by you vide 13 invoices mentioned in your letter. The original ARE-3A have been taken by the Central Excise authorities during their investigation to our organization on 15 June, 2004 alongwith other several documents including warehousing register. We could locate photocopies of 3 ARE-3A bearing No. 151,187 & 188. Which have already been provided to you. We are vigorously taking up the matter with concerned Central Excise authorities to release the re-warehousing certificates i.e. AR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed from their factory and received in the warehouse, the responsibility for payment of duty shall be made upon the said Company. Even that the purported show cause notice dated 17.06.2005 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of duty against the goods, which were received by the said Company. 7. The Adjudicating Authority modified the demand of duty on the basis of the letter dated 23.07.2008 of the Deputy Director, DGCEI and dropped the demand of duty in respect of ARE-3 No. 151,187 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red to the said company. The Adjudicating Authority had not disputed the said correspondences. As per Rule, 20 (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 M/s Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. 100% EOU admitted the receipt of the goods and therefore, the responsibility for payment of duty casts upon them. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the DGCEI by letter dated 19.2.2009 & 26.03.2009 informed that the quantity cleared by the appellants by the above mentioned ARE-3 had not been entered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te for clearance against CT 3 certificates issued by the recipient and responsibility is on the consignor once duplicate copy of ARE-3 received by him and the informed to the Jurisdictional Range Officer. In the present case, it is evident from the records that the Range Officer was informed the clearance of the goods and receipt of the goods by the said Company. It is also noted that there is no material available on record that the goods were diverted in the local market by the appellant. Henc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal, duplicate and triplicate copies of AR3A are sent with goods to the consignee. Consignor has to submit the quadruplicate copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned with the supplier unit. On receipt of goods, consignee shall send original copy to Superintendent in charge of his, duplicate to the supplier and keep triplicate for his record. Jurisdictional range officer incharge of the supplier unit is required to undertake correspondence if he does not receive original copy of AR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version