9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est for remission of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,650/- on 11,500 bags weighing 575 metric tonnes of neutralised waste classifiable under Tariff Item 68. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Mehta stated that the appellants were a Corporation of the Govt. of Gujarat and it had been subsequently merged with another Corporation of the Gujarat Govt. by the name of M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation. The appeal related, to the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 35,650/- on neutralised waste paid by the appellants under protest as the Collector had rejected the request for remission of this amount of duty under Rule 49. Shri Mehta further stated that the appellants were manufacturers of fertilisers falling under I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the waste which would not have been possible for the Supdt. to know unless these details had been furnished by the appellants themselves. The Manager of the appellant Company also conveyed the fact of the loss to the Supdt. In his letter, dated 6-10-81. In this letter he referred to the discussions the General Manager (Works) had with the Supdt. regarding the loss of 577 metric tons of neutralised waste. It is therefore, obvious that the Supdt's letter, dated 4-9-81 demanding duty must have been issued only after he got the relevant data from the appellant Company. The fact of the loss was not hidden from the Central Excise officers. The Supdt. of Central Excise drew the panchnama, dated 13-10-81 after about three weeks of the loss. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained a letter, dated 9-1-84 from the District Collector Baroda showing therein the rainfall during the months of July, August and September 1981. The Advocate drew my attention to a copy of this letter to support his contention of heavy rainfall. But inspite of all the evidence produced by the appellants, the Collector rejected the request for remission of duty on two grounds. The first ground was the alleged discovery of the loss by the Range Supdt. of Central Excise. Shri Mehta submitted that this was wholly incorrect as in coming to this finding, the Collector completely ignored the oral report of the appellants and the correspondence exchanged by them with the Range Supdt. The correspondence confirmed the oral report by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with the requirements of Rule 49 and the benefit of remissions could not be denied to the appellants. In this behalf, he relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Electronics Ltd. 1981 E.L.T. 496 which covered loss of goods under Rule 56A. Shri Mehta submitted that the ratio of this decision would hold good in the present appeal by analogy. He also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. 1983 E.C.R. 1865 D to urge that remission would be justified on the basis of the ratio of this decision. He further argued that the Collector had not exercised the discretion under Rule 49 judiciously but in an arbitrary fashion. He submitted that this was not correct or proper as the discretion in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There was no such report by the appellants. The goods lost were not mentioned in the RG 1 account and there was no entry in this register regarding the damage to the goods. As regards the appellants reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Electronics Ltd., Shri Pattekar argued that this was with reference to the provisions of Rule 56 A and therefore the ratio of the decision will not apply to the present appeal. There was no question of substantial compliance with Rule 49. In fact, there was no evidence to justify remission and no sufficient grounds for remission of the duty. Shri Pattekar therefore, supported the Collector's order and requested that the appeal be rejected. 4. Shri Mehta reiterated his argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a huge quantity of excisable goods would not have been noticed by the Section Officer. On the other hand, there is no evidence with the Central Excise authorities to allow the surreptitious removal of the goods without payment of duty. The number of bags is so large that these could not have been removed surreptitiously. Besides, the appellants are a Govt. of Gujarat Undertaking and they would not normally indulge in such a practice. On the other hand, they have been urging from the very beginning that the goods were destroyed in floods due to heavy rains. This plea has been discarded merely on the ground that the appellant did not report the loss to the Supdt. who discovered it and that the bags were not available for verification. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
