9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of sugar molasses falling under Chapter Sub-Heading Nos. 1701.31 and 1701.39 respectively of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant destroyed the molasses for the seasons - 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 involving duty of Rs.3,33,353.66. The duty was demanded from the Appellant on the ground that they had not obtained the permission from the concerned authority. A Show Cause Notice was also issued for demanding duty of Rs.4,22,800/- for the seasons, 1991-92 and 1992-93. Learned Commissioner allowed the remission for the periods - 1981-82 and 1991-92 involving duty of Rs.2,52,821.70. For the molasses pertaining to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident during handling or storage in such store-room or other approved premises, and 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 contention of the Appellant is that from the perusal of the second proviso of erstwhile Rule 49 (l) of CER. 1944, there is no ambiguity that duty is not demandable on any goods which become unfit for consumption due to natural causes, as claimed by the manufacturer. There is no dispute the goods got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such molasses and not claimed remission thereon, under Rule 49A. The contention is that it is an established law that the Board cannot issue instructions against statutory provisions. When Rule 49 itself allowed the remission of duty on the goods which were deteriorated/unfit for consumption due to unavoidable reasons, the B-2 Bond executed by the Appellant having condition opposed to Central Excise Rules, is not enforceable at all. In support of their contention they have placed reliance on the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) 1987(29) ELT 22 (Tri.) Shri Dudhganga-Vedganga Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Twelve Other Sakhar Karkhanas and others vs. CCE, Pune & Aurangabad and other; (ii) 1990(49) ELT 534(Tri.) Yashwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Commissioner at para 25 of the impugned Order reproduced hereunder: 25. I find that the assessee have put forth their side of the story in detail and the circumstances leading to the deterioration and destruction of molasses. They have also explained the genuineness and bonafide of their claim for remission of duty and quoted various decisions to support their contention. There is no dispute that when the goods are deteriorated and become unmarketable due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, there are provision in the statute for remission of duty and allowing its destruction. There are also decisions that when such request comes that should not be denied. lt will also be improper to summarily reject the reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
