2004 (9) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposition for not obtaining registration of premises for stock storage of consignments of Methanol cleared for export.

Analysis:
The appeal was made by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on the respondents for not registering their premises at Mahul for storing consignments of Methanol cleared for export. The penalty was imposed for contravention of Rule 9(1), Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Upon hearing both sides, it was found that the rules were not contravened. Rule 9(1) states that excisable goods cannot be removed from the manufacturing premises until the excise duty is paid. Rule 13 allows the removal of excisable goods under bond without payment of duty. The respondents had removed the goods for export under the appropriate rules and regulations, and the storage premises' registration was not a requirement under Section 6 read with Rule 174.

The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that the rules were not violated in this case. The respondents had followed the necessary procedures for exporting goods, and there was no specific requirement for registering the premises where the goods cleared for export were stored. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding and complying with the specific rules and regulations governing the storage and export of goods under excise laws. It emphasizes the need for clarity in interpreting legal provisions to avoid unnecessary penalties or disputes.