9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers of the consignee's factory showing re-warehousing particulars,, was not received by the appellant's jurisdictional Central Excise authority, proceedings were initiated against them byway of issuance of show cause notice on 29-7-03, raising demand of duty and proposing penalty upon them. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority on 30-6-04. 2. The said order was appealed against by the appellant. As the appellant claimed that Anti Evasion, Mumbai had withdrawn number of documents belonging to the consignee unit M/s. Umaji Overseas on 7-8-02, the relevant AR-3A was also one of the documents so withdrawn; the re-warehousing certificate could not be produced by the consignee. By ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to the above letter. The appellant's visit to the office of Anti Evasion proved futile. As such, the have submitted that letter written after a period of 4 years in October 2006 communicating that AR-3A was not available in the seized record, cannot be relied upon. When the Panchnama reflects upon the seizure of the said document, non-availability of the same in the office of Anti Evasion by itself is no conclusive proof of non-seizure of the same, especially when the Anti Evasion department has maintained silence on their request made in 2003. 6. Apart from the above, the appellants have drawn my attention to the various co-lateral evidences on record, evidencing the receipt of the goods by M/s. Umaji Overseas. The said consignee M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re procedure required to be followed in terms of the above provisions was with a view to ensure the receipt of the goods by the consignee. Where such receipt of the goods by the consignee can be proved by other documents, the sole factor of non-receipt of the re-warehousing certificate should not be made the basis for denying the benefit. 8. While examining the evidences on record, it is seen that the duly endorsed AR-3A certificate or re-warehousing certificate could not be produced by the consignee on account of withdrawal of the same by Anti Evasion authority. Admittedly, when the appellants approached them for the copy of the same in the year 2003, there was no reply from the said authority. Even the letter written in 2006 in response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
