2000 (8) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Destruction permission for damaged goods.
2. Demand for duty on damaged goods.
3. Quasi-judicial nature of the decision.
4. Unfit goods for human consumption.
5. Pending permission for destruction since 1993.

Issue 1: Destruction permission for damaged goods
The case involved the destruction of various quantities of damaged goods, including unfinished contaminated cigarettes and infested cut tobacco. Applications for destruction were made as far back as 1993, with samples confirmed unfit for human consumption by the Rajahmundry Institute. Despite repeated reminders, permission for destruction was not granted, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Demand for duty on damaged goods
The Superintendent demanded Central Excise duty on the damaged goods, even though they were unfit for human consumption and posed health and pollution hazards. The appellant argued that duty should not be demanded as the goods were still physically stored in the factory and had not been removed for sale.

Issue 3: Quasi-judicial nature of the decision
The appellant contended that the decision of the Commissioner regarding the destruction of goods should be quasi-judicial and passed after affording an opportunity for a hearing. The refusal to grant permission for destruction could result in significant financial liability, as highlighted in relevant case laws.

Issue 4: Unfit goods for human consumption
The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were confirmed to be unfit for human consumption, posing health risks and pollution problems. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the permission for destruction of these goods under Central Excise supervision.

Issue 5: Pending permission for destruction since 1993
The Tribunal observed that the applications for destruction of the damaged goods had been pending since 1993. Given the health hazards and pollution concerns associated with the unfit goods, the Tribunal directed the destruction of the goods under Central Excise supervision as prescribed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty on the damaged goods and ordering the destruction of the unfit goods under Central Excise supervision. The decision emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of such determinations and the importance of considering health and safety implications in such cases.