Full Judgment
2. The appellants imported certain goods and filed an into bond B/E at Mumbai. They applied for re-warehousing at Nashik and filed a bond. In terms of the bond, the re-warehousing certificate was to be produced within three months. However, it appears that the goods were lost/misplaced by transporter and ultimately reached the destination in October, 1990. It appears at the CWC authorities at Nashik refused to accept the consignment on the ground of delay.the importer retained the goods and approached the Customs at Mumbai. The duty was paid by a challan and the certificate dated 6.7.93 was given by the Customs certifying the amount of basic duty as well as CVD mentioning the number and dated of the transit bond. The importer assessee then took the credit of the additional duty paid. Later on 15.1.98, show cause notice was issued seeking reversal of the credit taken on the ground that the into bond B/E could not be treated as eligible document and that the credit was wrongly taken. The Addl.Commissioner passed the order confirming the duty and imposing the penalty. The Commissioner(Appeals) directed pre-deposit of both the amounts and in the failure of the appellants he dismissed the appeal before him in terms of Sec.35F of the Central Excise Act.
3. It is correct that the certificate given by the Customs is not a document mentioned in Rule 57G. It, however, certifies the payment of basic duty and (VI). The fact that the goods had suffered duty is not in dispute. On 12.7.93 the fact of credit having been taken was duly reported in the registers and also formed part of RT.12 returns. The certificate given by the Customs formed part of the documentation. in that case, there was absolutely no ground for the authorities to have invoked the extended period by accusing the assessees of deliberate suppression. On the ground of limitation alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, is to be followed.