TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er M/s. CFC India Services P. Ltd. has paid the entire duty of excise along with interest to the department and thereafter with regard to the same consignment the department cannot ask the appellant to pay the duty as the department cannot recover the duty twice for the same consignment and moreover as per the sub-clause (3) of Rule 20 it is the responsibility of the buyer to pay the duty and in the absence of non-payment, recovery proceedings can be initiated against the buyer. In this case the said duty was recovered. Therefore, find that the appellant is not liable to pay duty. Therefore, the entire demand is time barred as the show-cause notice has been issued beyond one year, which is the normal period of limitation and the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate dated 31.03.2007 in favour of the appellant. On the basis of CT-3 certificate the appellant supplied parts of pollution control equipment under the cover of Annexure A no. 10 dated 16.05.2007, no.11 dated 25.05.2007 and no.12 dated 30.06.2007 wherein the amount of duty involved was ₹ 2,76,864/-. The appellant cleared the consignment at nil rate of duty as per the said notification . During the course of EA-2000 audit, it was observed that the re-warehousing certificate was not received by the appellant within 90 days from the date of clearance and therefore the appellant was asked to pay the duty. Thereafter the appellant paid the duty provisionally through Cenvat Credit vide entry no.45851 dated 19.01.2009. Thereafter a show-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexed in the appeal and the same was acknowledge by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant were provided with CT-3 certificate in respect of the final product cleared to CFS India Services Pvt. Ltd. and they have correctly cleared the final product without payment of excise duty by availing the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 and therefore, the demand of duty is not sustainable. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the customers unit vide letter dated 17.5.2010 wrote to the customer that the capital goods purchased by them from the appellants against CT-3 Certificate dated 31.3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich provides that the responsibility for payment of duty on the goods which are removed from the factory of production to warehouse is upon the consignee. She also submitted that Clause (4) of Rule 20 provides that where the goods dispatched for warehousing or re-warehousing are not received in the warehouse of the consignee, then the responsibility for payment of duty shall be upon the consignor. 4. She further submitted that the present show cause notice was issued on 20.3.2009 in respect of the clearance in dispute made in May, 2007 which is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. She also submitted that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
