ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 has been denied to the appellants herein who are holders of Central Excise registration certificate for the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 72 & 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 on the ground that they had cleared goods to 100% EOU M/s. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Ltd. but CT-3 certificates were not in their name but only endorsed in their name by M/s. Excelsior Design & Projects Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. and an endorsed CT-3 certificate is not recognized as a valid duty paying document for the purpose of availment of benefit under the Notification. The result of the denial of the benefit is a confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 88,500/-.
2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice and hence we heard the ld. DR and perused the records. Although the appellants have raised a ground in their appeal that one of the CT-3 certificates viz. CT-3 No. 217 dated 22-12-1994 was relevant for the purpose of clearance of some of the goods and that CT-3 certificate was in their name, and therefore, duty of Rs. 60,000/- is not payable by them, the copy of the CT-3 certificate referred to hereinabove has not been filed before us in order to verify the correctness of their contention and further the CT-3 certificate held to be relevant is CT-3 No. 208 dated 15-12-1994. Therefore, their plea regarding clearance under CT-3 certificate No. 217 and that such a certificate was in their favour is not substantiated and cannot be accepted.
3. As regards CT-3 certificate No. 216 dtd. 22-12-1994 involving duty of Rs. 28,550/- their submission that there is no bar on endorsing CT-3 certificate and that, therefore, even this amount of duty demanded from them cannot be sustained, is also not tenable as there is no provision for endorsement of CT-3 certificate. The plea raised in the appeal that the benefit of the Notification should not be denied on procedural ground that CT-3 certificate is not in their name and has been only endorsed to them, is also not acceptable for the reason that the fact that the duty paying documents in such cases is CT-3 certificate and the law does not provide for any endorsement thereon and therefore, the fact that the certificate is not in their name cannot be treated as only a procedural lapse. We, therefore, see no substance in the above appeal, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.