9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an unprecedented bumper crop of sugarcane and consequently sugar production as also Molasses production was very high. Hence they were necessarily required to store Molasses in katcha pits and Molasses, being subject to Molasses control order, their clearances cannot keep pace with the receipts and the accumulation got deteriorated over a period of time and ultimately the quantity of 5115.865 M. Tons of Molasses have to be destroyed after getting permission from the Collector. This destruction was carried out in the presence of Central Excise Assistant Collector and also other authorities. However, subsequently a show cause notice was issued by the Collector alleging that duty remission is not available to them under Rule 49, since the Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on 24-11-1987. However, the show cause notice demanding the duty was issued only on 7th August, 1989. Hence the demand is clearly time barred apart from the fact that their claim for remission of duty is sustainable on merits. 4. Shri Mondal, SDR, on the other hand contended that under Rule 47(3) of the Central Excise Rules, storage premises is required to be approved by the proper officer. These katcha pits have not been approved by the Central Excise department for storage of Molasses and the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that these katcha pits were approved as storage premises during the relevant period. When the goods have deteriorated on account of storage in katcha pits, which are not approved premises und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consumption or for marketing, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Collector. In this case we find that such a permission has been granted accepting that the goods have become unfit for consumption or marketing and the goods have also been destroyed under proper supervision. A condition of demand of duty cannot be put because the proviso itself contemplates for not demanding duty. Hence the only conditions which could be contemplated are that the goods ordered to be destroyed do not go into the market or consumption and measures to ensure that object are to be prescribed by way of conditions. This is what is contemplated in the second proviso and there is no dispute that this condition has been complied with by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
