1991 (12) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refusal of permission to destroy excisable goods received under Rule 192 without payment of duty.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the refusal of permission to the appellants for the destruction of refuse of excisable goods received under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules. The dispute arose due to the refusal of some parts received under Rule 192, which the appellants were entitled to destroy by following the procedure of Rule 195. The issue dated back to 1971 when there was a dispute over whether such refuse could be disposed of under Rule 195 with or without payment of duty. After a series of correspondence, the refuse was disposed of on payment of duty, and a refund was claimed, which was ultimately sanctioned by the Collector (Appeals) in 1978. Subsequently, permissions for destruction without payment of duty were periodically sought, leading to the current appeal against the refusal of permission by the Assistant Collector and the subsequent rejection of the appeal by the Collector (Appeals).

The appellants, manufacturers of tractors and parts, had been availing the facility of Chapter X Procedure for parts received for O.E. use. The dispute revolved around whether the goods in question were damaged during the manufacturing process or were defective at the time of receipt. The authorities below focused on Rule 196B, which deals with goods found damaged or defective on receipt, but failed to consider Rule 195, which permits the disposal of refuse of all excisable goods remaining after the industrial process. The appellants argued that the goods in question were defective or damaged and should have been considered under Rule 195 if they were damaged during the manufacturing process. The appellants presented evidence that in earlier proceedings, a similar issue had arisen, and the department had to refund the duty charged, indicating a precedent for such cases.

The Tribunal noted that the denial of permission and the demand for duty did not appear justified based on the clear provisions of Rule 195 and Rule 196B. The Tribunal found that the authorities had not considered the case under Rule 195 and had wrongly focused on Rule 196B. The Tribunal referred to a CEGAT decision to interpret the provisions realistically and concluded that the denial of permission and the demand for duty were not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the appellants to destroy the goods without charging duty, as they were entitled to do under Rule 195.