2017 (5) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case is that the appellants have cleared excisable goods without payment of duty against CT3 certificate on ARE-3 form. The case of the department is that the appellants have not produced the re-warehousing certificate in time, accordingly, they are liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 20(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On this allegation a show-cause notice was issued proposing demand of excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, the demand cannot be raised from the consignor as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand from consignor can only be raised if the goods have not been received by the consignee. In the fact of the present case, Rule 20(3) applies, according to which if at all there is any lapse and duty is recoverable, the same must be recovered from the consignee of the goods as t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Rules, 2002. The duty can be demanded from the consignor under this procedure, only in a case where goods are diverted without delivery of the goods to the consignee against CT-3 certificate, which is not the case here. Therefore, the demands raised against the appellants are not sustainable. The appellants admittedly did not produce re-warehousing certificate, which is requirement unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X