1999 (3) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand for removing consignment without permission under Rule 57F
2. Appeal against duty demand and penalty imposition
3. Validity of permission for removal of goods granted subsequently
4. Interpretation of permission under Rule 57F(2) as prospective
5. Permission granted in 1987 for removal of goods without duty payment
6. Description discrepancy of goods as copper wire rods or wire
7. Exemption under Notification 214/86 for goods used in manufacturing
8. Applicability of exemption to goods removed by the respondent
9. Justification of duty demand and penalty imposition

Analysis:
1. The issue arose when the assessee was demanded duty for removing a consignment of copper wire without obtaining permission under Rule 57F. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000 due to removal before permission was granted.
2. The assessee appealed contending that the goods were sent to a different firm with existing permission. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the duty demand and penalty based on the subsequent permission granted by the department.
3. The appeal by the department raised the question of the validity of permission granted after the removal of goods, arguing that it should not cover anticipatory removals. The judge found that permissions operate prospectively and not retrospectively.
4. The advocate for the respondent argued that the permission granted in 1987 covered the removal. However, the judge clarified that permission under Rule 57F(2) is effective from the date granted and does not apply retrospectively.
5. The discrepancy in goods description as copper wire rods or wire led to further debate. The judge analyzed the permission granted in 1987 and the actual goods removed, concluding that the exemption could not be invoked for duty waiver.
6. Even if the goods were considered as copper wire rods, the exemption under Notification 214/86 did not apply as the goods were not manufactured by the respondent as a job worker, leading to the duty demand being justified.
7. Considering the prolonged pending application for permission, the judge deemed the penalty imposition unjustified. Consequently, the Collector (Appeals) order was set aside, and the Assistant Collector's duty demand on the goods was reinstated.