9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refuse of excisable goods received under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules and the other one dated 16-12-1986 permitting them to destroy the refuse of excisable goods on payment of duty. 2. The appellants, manufacturers of tractors and parts thereof had been availing the facility of Chapter X Procedure extended vide Notification issued in respect of parts received by them for O.E. use. Some of the parts received vide Rule 192 however were refused and the appellants were entitled to destroy them by following the procedure of Rule 195. In the year 1971, an issue however arose as to whether such refuse could be disposed of under Rule 195 with or without payment of duty and after a protracted correspondence, however, the refuse was dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellants, vide their letter dated 9-12-1986 informed the Assistant Collector that the goods had to be destroyed and there was no question of clearing them on payment of duty and the Assistant Collector vide the letter/order dated 16-12-1986, permitted destruction on payment of duty thereon. The appellants, thereupon, preferred appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who, virtually reiterated the observation by the Assistant Collector and endorsed the same and rejected the appeal. 3. Heard Shri P. Sreedharan, for the appellants and Mrs. Lipika Majumdar, the Ld. SDR, for the Department. 4. Initially Shri Sreedharan submitted that, as per the impugned orders, their duty liability was to the extent of Rs. 45,203.48. However, subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame has to be interpreted in more realistic way. The appellants have produced the copy of the letter dated 10-12-1985 seeking permission to destroy which is now sought to be pursued and going through the same, it appears that goods for which permission is sought are all defective or damaged goods. Even the authorities below have not doubted that claim, and have merely rejected the permission, as they were not declared as such on receipt . As mentioned earlier, if they felt the goods to have been damaged during manufacturing process, permission ought to have been granted vide Rule 195. 7. The appellants have brought on record the evidence that in the earlier proceedings, the same issue was raised, and ultimately the department had, under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
