1994 (7) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Unauthorized storage and movement of molasses in unapproved premises.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Alleged breach of Rule 149 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Applicability of duty on unfit molasses destroyed without permission.

Unauthorized storage and movement of molasses in unapproved premises:
The appeal was filed against the Collector's order, which found the storage of molasses in Kachcha pits to be unauthorized, constituting a breach of Central Excise Rules. The Collector noted that the movement of molasses from storage tank to Kachcha pit was without duty payment. The appellant failed to comply with Rule 149 by not giving sufficient notice to the department. The impugned order was confirmed, rejecting the appeal.

Imposition of penalty under Rule 9:
The Asstt. Collector imposed a penalty against the appellant for removing molasses without permission and directed payment of Central Excise Duty. The appellant argued that the molasses were unfit for consumption and destroyed with proper intimation to authorities. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision to support their case. The authorities justified the duty demand and penalty imposition.

Alleged breach of Rule 149:
The appellant was required to destroy molasses in the presence of an officer under Rule 149, but this was not done, leading to a demand for Basic Excise Duty and Special Excise Duty. The appellant contended that the molasses were unfit for consumption and destroyed with proper approvals. The State Excise Commissioner permitted the destruction, but the authorities insisted on duty payment and penalty.

Applicability of duty on unfit molasses destroyed without permission:
The Tribunal analyzed the case in reference to a previous decision and found the facts similar. The goods were certified unfit for consumption, and the destruction was supervised by State Excise Authorities. The demand for duty on destroyed goods was deemed unsustainable, but the penalty imposition was upheld due to the lack of permission from Central Excise Authorities. The impugned order was mostly upheld with a modification regarding duty demand on destroyed goods.