9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RESENTED BY: Shri V.K. Saxena, Jt. CDR, for the Appellant. Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner holding that sponge iron coming in contact with rain water rendering that unfit for sale or marketing shall not be dutiable and duty thereon can be remitted under law. 2. Ld. Jt. CDR Shri Saxena vehemently opposes the first Appellate order with the argument that remitting duty as above, what has been done by the impugned order shall cause loss of Revenue. According to him, there is a procedure prescribed by Chapter 18 of Excise Manual in respect of destruction of goods by natural causes to claim remission of duty. Such a procedure if not followed, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Court has appreciated the claim of the Respondent in that Appeal and the goods lost by natural causes were held to be not dutiable. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The contention raised by Revenue that ld. Commissioner has ignored the instructions under Chapter 18 of the CBEC's Manual is not a point for decision in this Appeal for the reason that neither Section 5 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have made provision prescribing any mandatory conditions to be satisfied by the Authority to entertain claim of remission which arise out of loss or destruction by natural causes or are by un avoidable accident or are claimed by manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im on the goods was loss due to rain water rendering the goods unfit for marketing: The satisfaction of the ld. Commissioner is clear from para-9 of the order who appears to have well understood the provisions of Section 5 of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 8. Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) was made in the context of earlier Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Rule 49 which was subject matter of scrutiny by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad is in similar pari meteria with Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 emanating from Section 5 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad is squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
