ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. After hearing both sides, and considering that the duty demand in this case has been made under Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in as much as certain goods which were sent under AR3A procedure from the unit in Kandla Free trade Zone to another 100% EOU at Hisar, Haryana have not been alleged to have been rewarehoused in the warehouse register maintained at Hisar unit. The affidavit of the proprietor of the Hisar unit and his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 very clearly indicate that the said goods have been received by him. No explanation from the said proprietor of the Hisar Unit appears on record as to why there was a failure on his part to rewarehouse the goods. The explanations on record are that the said goods have been diverted by Hisar unit and eventually exported out of India. This matter was adjourned in the past twice to enable the department to obtain and verify this aspect of this case i.e. whether the goods were subsequently diverted and or exported from Hisar. No report could be placed by the ld. D.R. In this connection, he sought further extension of time.
2. We have considered the matter and find that while the Revenue is free to take whatever time they want to ascertain, whether the goods were eventually exported or not, at this prima facie stage, we find that a good case exists for the unit i.e. appellant herein which situated Kandla to be not visited with duty liability in this regard. We would therefore order complete waiver of the duty determined and the penalties imposed on the present appellants before and direct that the appeal should be listed in due course.
3. Application allowed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in above terms.