9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the Order-in-Appeal No. M-142/B-II-88/87 dated 10-6-1987 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, where he had confirmed the Assistant Collector s order dated 1-10-1986, rejecting the permission to the Respondents, for destruction of refuse of the excisable goods received under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules, and the other one dated 16-12-1986, granting permission to the Respondents to destroy the refuse of excisable goods on payment of duty. 2. The facts relevant for determination of the issue here, are that, the Respondents who are the manufacturers of tractors and parts thereof, availed the facility of Chapter X procedure, extended vide Notifications issued in that regard, for the parts received by them. Some part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment to grant permission to destroy the goods without payment of duty. 4. The applicants have therefore filed this application for reference to the High Court. Though, in the application as initially filed, no question of law was formulated, however, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Ld. JDR has filed an addendum to their application formulating of the question for reference thus: Whether waste, damaged and defective goods arising after completion of the manufacturing process under provisions of Chapter X, is covered by provisions of Rule 195 or not and whether the Tribunal has erred in interpreting Rule 195. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by the Ld. consultant that the application as originally filed did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the preliminary objection raised is not sustained. 7. Heard Shri Ravinder Jain, the Ld. JDR, for the applicant, and Shri J.N. Pickle, the Ld. consultant for the Respondents. 8. Going through the records, and also considering the submissions, the prayer for reference does not appear sustainable as : (a) It has been brought on record, without contradiction from the departmental authorities, that in the past, similar destruction was refused at the lower stage, and duty was got paid, but subsequently, when the matter was taken up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), it was held, vide his order dated 10-6-1987, that the duty was not chargeable, and the amount paid was refunded. (b) Though the authorities below, in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
