9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. This appeal is filed by M/s. Gepach International, against the letter No. 401/2003, dated 18-7-2003, issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Peenya Range, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, to M/s. Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Ltd., intimating that their application dated 24-2-2001, seeking permission for destruction of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner himself and that too by an order in writing. The order for rejection of remission of duty and destruction of goods has been passed without making any findings. Application for destruction of excisable goods and remission of duty was filed with the office of Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 49(1A). Rule 49(1A) makes it clear that the manufacturer has the right to apply for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... si judicial function under Rule 49 is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order. (ii) ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Kolkata) wherein it was held that Remission of Duty/Destruction of goods under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules are quasi judicial functions and hence an order refusing to consider such request without indicating any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. He stated that the appeal of the appellants is not maintainable. The communication is a letter from Superintendent to M/s. Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Ltd wherein he asked them to deposit the duty. It is not a communication to the appellants. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the letter of the Superintendent is a communication to M/s. Karn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
