Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Motor Industries Company Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....by the consignee duty can be demanded for these under rule 196. in case of goods cleared under ct 2 certificate there is no liability of the manufacturer and following ar 3 procedure cannot make them liable to duty. it is contended by the respondents that rightly or wrongly, they followed ar 3 procedure but the fact of the receipt of the goods by the assessees is not in dispute. we find from their reply dated 1-2-1988 to the assistant collector placed at page 8 of the paper book that copies of the ar 3 forms were submitted alongwith claim certified by the consignee confirming that the goods were received by the respondents. what was relevant to find out was whether or not the goods removed from the consigner's end had been received by the consignee. the revenue have no where contended that these goods which moved under chapter x procedure for specified industrial purposes were diverted enroute or were not received in the consignee's factory. since the receipt of goods by the consignee factory is not disputed, we do not find any merit in the revenue appeal which seeks to introduce provisions of chapter vii in chapter x.chapter x is a self-contained scheme and is covered under.....

Judgment:

1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-9-1988.

2. The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of refund on goods removed under Chapter X when there was delay in receipt of AR 3 certificates.

3. Arguing for the Revenue, the learned DR submits that they did not produce rewarehousing certificate as required under Rules 173 and 136 and therefore, they were not eligible to refund. The respondents are not present but have desired a decision on merits.

4. We have heard learned DR and perused the records of the case. The Collector (Appeals) has held that under Chapter X procedure if the goods are not received by the consignee duty can be demanded for these under Rule 196. In case of goods cleared under CT 2 certificate there is no liability of the manufacturer and following AR 3 procedure cannot make them liable to duty. It is contended by the respondents that rightly or wrongly, they followed AR 3 procedure but the fact of the receipt of the goods by the assessees is not in dispute. We find from their reply dated 1-2-1988 to the Assistant Collector placed at Page 8 of the paper book that copies of the AR 3 forms were submitted alongwith claim certified by the consignee confirming that the goods were received by the respondents. What was relevant to find out was whether or not the goods removed from the consigner's end had been received by the consignee. The Revenue have no where contended that these goods which moved under Chapter X procedure for specified industrial purposes were diverted enroute or were not received in the consignee's factory. Since the receipt of goods by the consignee factory is not disputed, we do not find any merit in the Revenue appeal which seeks to introduce provisions of Chapter VII in Chapter X.Chapter X is a self-contained scheme and is covered under Rules 192 to 196BB.5. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and we reject the Revenue appeal. We must however, make it clear that consequential relief, if any, will be subject to provisions of amended Section 11B of the CESA, 1944.