2003 (6) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of remission applications under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Applicability of Trade Notice for remission applications.
3. Authentication of certificates issued by State Excise authorities.
4. Burden of proof for claiming remission of duty due to natural causes.
5. Lack of specific procedure under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 49.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, filed remission applications for the period July 2000 to January 2001 under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 49, which were rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The rejection was based on the grounds of not following the procedure outlined in a Trade Notice and the State Excise authorities' certificates not being considered sufficient evidence.

2. The Trade Notice referred to in the impugned order, which outlined the procedure for filing remission applications, was found to be inapplicable as it pertained to accidents, not natural evaporation. The Commissioner's reliance on the Trade Notice was deemed misplaced, and the rejection of State Excise authorities' certificates was considered unjustified.

3. The State Excise authorities' certificates accompanying the remission applications were questioned for their authenticity, lacking essential marks like the officer's name, signature, and seal. The absence of an authenticated copy of the State Excise Commissioner's order from 1978 cast doubt on the probative value of the certificates.

4. The burden of proof for claiming remission of duty due to natural causes fell on the claimant, requiring them to satisfy the Commissioner that the loss occurred as stated. In this case, the loss of denatured spirit was attributed to natural evaporation, necessitating evidence to support the claim, which was lacking due to the rejection of the certificates.

5. With no specific procedure outlined for sub-rule (1A) of Rule 49, the jurisdictional Commissioner was directed to reconsider the remission applications without reference to the Trade Notice but with a focus on the evidence provided. The appellants were advised to produce authenticated documents and the State Excise Commissioner's order to support their claims adequately. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the documentary evidence from the State Excise authorities in the fresh decision on the remission applications.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for a fresh decision by the jurisdictional Commissioner, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the party to be heard.