1. ' ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, J.--- This appeal is directed against the order, dated 12-8-2000 passed by respondent No,2 on appeal filed by respondent No,1 allowing the same.
2. ' The facts giving rise to this appeal are that during the period 1990-91 to 1996-97 the respondent No,1 received from Messrs Pak Grease Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Grease and who are alleged to have cleared the same from their licensed warehouse without payment of Central Excise Duty. The appellants issued show-cause notices to respondent No,1 which was contested by them. The Collector (Appeals-II) adjudged against the respondent No,1 and the liability as assessed in the notices were confirmed plus additional duty and penalties. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision the respondent No,1 preferred appeal before Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed as stated above.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondent No,1 at length. It is contended by the counsel for appellant that the goods stored by respondent No,1 in the warehouse should not have been taken out from the same except on payment of duty for home consumption. On the above point the Tribunal has observed as follows:- "We observe that the appellants are availing themselves with the facility of clearing finished goods under bond which is allowed to Petroleum Products including grease (old heading 19 and co- relating new heading (3.11) in S.R.0.1049(1)/72, dated 15-1-1972 in pursuance of Central Excise Rule, 139 under the Chapter VII of Central Excise Rules, 1944 dealing with transfer order bond and in view of the combined effect of the provisions of sections 3(1) and 3-C is that Central Excise duty is to be realized when goods are cleared for home consumption or for export and no excise duty was payable when goods were shifted in another portion of the same premises. In this connection rule 143 of the said Rules is relevant. The appellants have established their case by placing on record copies of Form L-1. It is not the case of the Department that the appellants had not paid excise duty at all. The appellants have further established their case by placing on record all the copies of relevant record that they kept the record according to the rule and had paid the central excise duty."
4. It is an admitted position that respondent No,1 stored goods in warehouse on which they had paid the excise duty but on transfer of the same from one portion of the premises to another they are not liable to pay the central excise duty as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Keeping in mind the above observations of the Tribunal we do not find it fit to interfere with the observations made by them.
5. ' We by our short order, dated 21-8-2001 had dismissed this appeal and foregoing are the reasons for the same.