9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng goods along with various records : - Item Value of goods (i) Surgical Absorbent Cotton Wool Rs. 6,51,547.00 (ii) Mail Bag made of Jute Rs. 1,40,451.15 1.2 A show cause notice dated 30-4-1987 was issued proposing to confiscate the above seized goods and to raise a demand during the period from March, 1986 to 24-11-1986 on the following goods alleged to have been cleared during the aforesaid period :- Description Value Rate Duty (i) Cotton Bandage Rs. 22,06,751.62 15% Rs. 3,31,012.74 (ii) Gauze Rs. 1,42,560.00 15% Rs. 21,384.00 (iii) Absorbent Cotton Wool Rs. 1,42,560.00 15% Rs. 6,24,055.54 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were kept in the custody of the appellant company :- (a) Absorbent Cotton Wool 39,027 Pkts. (b) ECSG (containing 80,200 Mtrs.) 802 Rolls (c) Bandage 52,000 Pkts. (d) Gauze 54,000 Mtrs. 1.6 On 11-5-1987, a fire broke out in the factory of the appellant company and the said goods were completely burnt. The appellants prayed for remission of duty on the burnt goods which were kept in the custody by the seizing officers. But this prayer for remission of duty appears to have been rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise inasmuch as a demand of duty has been made on such goods kept in the custody. 1.7 By a notice dated 1-4-1987, an amount of Rs. 4,34,643.74 was proposed to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration Certificate given by the Directorate of Cottage and Small-Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal. Those items were added subsequently on 14-2-1989. It has also been denied for another reason that the appellants had not submitted their returns to the S.S.I. Authorities. Learned Advocate has submitted that both these reasons are not correct for denying the benefit of the said Notification. 3. As far as the first ground is concerned, he relies on the Tribunal's Judgment in the case of Manko Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 375. Ratio of the said Judgment is, he submits, that as long as the Registration Certificate in respect of the Unit is given by the said authority, that would meet th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 to 24-11-1986, whereas in respect of the second seizure, the period of demand was from November, 1986 to 25-2-1987. The plea of overlapping period was taken, but no segregation of the period of demand had been made and there was no reason as to why both the amounts had been confirmed. 7. Next plea of the learned Advocate is that in respect of the second seizure, quantification of demand has been left to the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that this is illegal on the part of the Commissioner as has been held by the Tribunal in a number of judgments. He relies upon the following two citations in support of the aforesaid proposition :- (i) L.M.L. v. C.C.Ex., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 154; (ii) District Construction L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of both sides. We are inclined to agree with the first plea of the learned Advocate that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 should not have been denied to the appellants for the reasons enumerated by the Commissioner in the impugned Orders. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate on Manko Industries (supra) is correct in the facts and circumstances of the cases. Accordingly, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 should be extended to the appellants. So far as the second plea is concerned that the demand of March, 1986 should not have been confirmed, which is included in the amount of Rs. 11,01,293.26, we are inclined to remand the matters on that count because the reasons given by the learned SDR that the previ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denied by the authorities, there may be a case for ex gratia remission by the competent authority. This can be considered separately by the Commissioner or by any other competent authority on ex gratia basis. We, however, do not give any direction on this point. 17. In view of our aforesaid observations on various pleas, we are of the view that the matters are required to be remanded and the cases readjudicated for fixing the correct liability of duty and since the confiscation of the goods and the quantum of penalty will also be dependent upon the applicability of Notification No. 175/86, we set aside the same, but to be taken up by the Adjudicating Officer in de novo proceeding in the light of our aforesaid observations. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
