2010 (12) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - The appellant is a manufacturer of aerated waters and the aerated water bottles indicate Best before date which is a requirement under the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1955 - The authorised representative submits that as per their company s quality policy, the sale of the goods after best expiry date is not permissible and that the goods have been destroyed as sale is not in the interest of the name of the company and health of the consumers - Held that Rule 21 permits remission of duty on the goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing and the decision that it is unfit for consumption or for marketing is the decision of the management and that the impugned goods stand destroyed. - Remission of duty allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding remission of duty on aerated water bottles based on Best before date policy.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of aerated waters, appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding remission of duty on certain quantities of aerated water bottles. The bottles indicated a Best before date, as required by the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1955. The appellant's policy dictated that the beverages should not be marketed after the Best before date, even though they were still consumable. The Additional Commissioner had granted remission based on the appellant's claim that the goods were not marketable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, stating that the goods were useable even after the Best before date, and no test certificate regarding the poor quality of the product was produced by the appellant.

2. The appellant's authorized representative argued that their company's quality policy prohibited the sale of goods after the expiry date, leading to the destruction of the goods to protect the company's reputation and consumers' health. The Department, represented by the Learned DR, supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings.

3. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, referred to Rule 21, which allows remission of duty on goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or marketing. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision on whether goods are unfit for consumption or marketing lies with the management. In this case, the appellant's claimed goods were destroyed, and there were no Departmental efforts to prevent the destruction if the goods were deemed fit for consumption. The Tribunal concluded that a certificate confirming the goods' unsuitability for consumption was necessary.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and reinstated the original authority's decision to grant remission. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law, in favor of the appellant.