9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant company and seized the following 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh deposited as Security for taking the provisional release of the seized goods. 1.5 Again on 26-2-1987, a batch of Central Excise Officers from Anti-Evasion Unit, Howrah North Division paid a surprise visit and seized the following goods 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 cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,526.45 1.11 Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee has submitted that the Commissioner in respect of both the impugned Orders has not allowed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that some of the products manufactured by the appellant company were not stated in the Registration 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 Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 986 be excluded from the confirmed amount as aforesaid. 6. Next plea of the learned Advocate is that there is an overlapping period of demand in respect of the two adjudication orders which are impugned before the Tribunal. In respect of the first seizure culminating in the demand of Rs. 11,01,293.26, the period was from 1st March, 1986 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions setting aside the impugned Orders and remanding the matters to the Adjudicating Authority for giving the aforesaid benefits. 11. Opposing the aforesaid contentions, learned SDR, Shri K.K. Biswas reiterates the various findings of the adjudicating authority. 12. We have carefully considered the 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the plea of remission of duty on goods kept in the custody and destroyed by fire, we do not find that there are no provisions in law for remission of duty for a quasi-judicial authority on the goods kept in custody and burnt by fire. Since, however, the extent of fire has not been 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
