Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Turkewadi Rural Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/2783/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/78/03 dated 28.4.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Turkewadi Rural Industries Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Respondent Appearance:
Shri G.T. Kanchanpurkar, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 23.11.2011 Date of Decision: 23.11.2011 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of Rs.1,31,400/- is confirmed and a penalty of Rs.1,000/- is imposed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant cleared goods without payment of duty under ARE-3 for supply to the Special Economic Zone, Chennai. As per the procedure laid down under Rule 156 of the Central Excise Rules, the appellant is required to produce rewarehousing certificate within 90 days from the clearance of goods. As the appellant failed to do so hence the demand is made. From the record, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that even after five years, the appellant failed to produce the requisite rewarehousing certificate. The goods were cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 156 of the Central Excise Rules and the appellant failed to comply with the conditions laid down in the Rule. Even today, the appellant failed to produce any rewarehousing certificate as required. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2