9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses during 1982-83 out of which 55795.25 qtls. were lifted out by various customers/allottees and 10170.40 qtls. were left as balance in stock in R.G. 1 on 8-8-1983. On the basis of permission given by the State Excise Authorities the said quantity of molasses, namely 10170.40 qtls. was drained out on 24-11-1983. Thereafter R.T. 12 for molasses for the month of November 1983 showed that the said quantity of molasses had been cleared by the factory without payment of duty. Since the Central Excise Authorities felt that the said excisable goods were cleared on the permission from the State Excise Authorities and not the Central Excise Authorities, there has been a contravention by the appellant of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Excise Authorities of U.P. or any supervision exercised over the alleged destruction of the goods by the State Excise Authorities cannot constitute the compliance of Rule 49(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and if the provisions of the rule were not observed the party cannot claim the benefit of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 49. 5. Learned SDR for the respondent pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Dhampur Sugar Mills, Dhampur covers the instant case in favour of the respondent [1986 (24) E.L.T. 28A - Tribunal] inasmuch as that decision holds merely because the quality of goods produced had deteriorated it does not follow that the goods cease to become duit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out under the supervision of those authorities. In these circumstances, he stated that it would be harsh interpretation of Rule 49 to demand duty on the goods particularly when the Central Excise Authorities had been duly kept informed of the correspondence exchanged with the State Excise Authorities. Learned SDR pointed out that the benefit of duty could be claimed only if the proper procedure under Rule 49 had been followed and permission of the Central Excise Authorities had been taken as has been held by the adjudicating authority. 7. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. I am inclined to agree with the pleas of the appellant s learned advocate. I agree that the facts in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed by the Collector may involve imposition of some penalty for breach of such procedure. Imposition of liability to duty for breach of procedure is not called for. Accordingly, the demand of duty in the impugned order is set aside. 8. As regards the penalty, I also observe that the Central Excise authorities were duly kept informed of the exchange of correspondence with the State Excise Authorities. Breach of procedure, if any, can, therefore, be considered not more than a technical breach. There was no deliberate intention to cause that violation. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 100/-. Consequential relief, if any, be granted. 9. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
