2006 (1) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission for storing duty paid oil on behalf of customers.
2. Interpretation of Trade Notices No. 29/2002 and No. 67/2003.
3. Legality of Commissioner's order.
4. Binding nature of Board's Circulars.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the refusal of the Commissioner to grant permission to manufacturers of refined oil to store duty paid oil on behalf of their customers. The manufacturers had a Storage Agreement with their customers and sought permission, which was denied by the Commissioner, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel relied on Trade Notice No. 29/2002, dated 21-3-2002, which clarified that under the new Rules, manufacturers did not require permission to store duty paid goods. Additionally, Trade Notice No. 67/2003, dated 9-12-2003, reiterated this stance, stating that manufacturers could bring duty paid goods for storage without needing permission from any Central Excise officer. The counsel argued that the Commissioner's order was unjustified in light of these clarifications.

3. The learned SDR representing the department conceded that the Board's Circulars were binding, acknowledging the position presented by the appellant's counsel regarding the lack of necessity for seeking permission to store duty paid goods based on the Trade Notices issued.

4. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the Trade Notices explicitly stated that manufacturers did not require permission from Central Excise officers to store duty paid goods on their premises. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order rejecting the permission request to be incorrect and illegal. The appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside, with the possibility of providing consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting relevant Trade Notices and Circulars issued by the Board in determining the legality of administrative decisions, such as the refusal of permission by authorities. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the binding nature of such official communications in guiding the application of excise laws and procedures.