9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawn by the Department during 1988 and as such Kachcha pits were no longer on approved place of storage under Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and any storage of molasses whatsoever, was in unauthorised premises and constituted breach of the provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as their movement from the storage tank to Kachcha pit was removal without payment of duty. Further, according to the appellant themselves, they should have given at least 7 days notice to the department under Rule 149 as adopted under Rule 173N for SRP Commodities, but I find that even the requirement of this rule was not complied with by them. The intimation latter was sent by the appellant to the Range Superintendent on 4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was required to destroy the Molasses in the presence of an Officer and as this was not done by them they were asked to pay Rs. 83,154/- as Basic Excise Duty and 4,157.73 as Special Excise Duty. They were also asked to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed on them. 4. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that movement of molasses is controlled by the State Excise Authorities; that on account of long storage of molasses in open Kachcha Pits they had deteriorated and had become unfit for human consumption; that samples of Molasses were drawn by local State Excise Inspector and that the Alcohol Technologist had reported after test that Molasses had become unfit for manufacture of Alcohol and un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereunder and the second is the State Excise Control emphasising that here we are concerned with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules framed thereunder. The ld. SDR sub- mitted that for purpose of duty and penalty it is the Central Excise Law which will prevail that the fact remains that Molasses were drained out in the absence of Central Excise Officer; that no permission was accorded to the appellants for destroying the Molasses; that there was no certificate issued by the Chief Chemist that the Molasses was unfit for human consumption or had deteriora-ted to such an extent as to render them unfit for human consumption. Reiterating the findings of the lower authorities, the ld. SDR submitted that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt if any, is at best of a procedural nature. 2nd proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 reads as follows :- Provided further that the proper officer may not demand duty due on any goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the collector by order in writing. The substantive effect of this proviso is that the excisable goods are not liable to duty if they are unfit for consumption or marketing. This fact is not disputed in the instant case. Substantive condition for claiming remission of duty is that the goods are destroyed in a manner so that these are irretrievable as such goods. Destruction of the goods in the instant case is not disputed by the department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
