9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice C. No. Molasses 13/SRP/1/82 dated the 28th May, 1982 asking the assessee to reply to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Laheriasarai as to why the demand so raised should not be confirmed under rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In reply to the said show cause notice the assessee submitted vide his letter C. No. SS/9A/Mol/1895, dated the 20th August, 1982, that 8063 qtls. of molasses were drained out and washed away due to an accident. The respondent had contended that there was no contravention of rules nor had failed to account for any molasses as alleged in the said show cause notice. The respondent stated that a substantial quantity of molasses was lost due to an unavoidable accident which occurred on the night of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to the Excise Commissioner, Cane Commissioner and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Patna giving the full details of the accident and the circumstances under which it had occurred. He has also endorsed a copy of the telegram to the Supdt. of Central Excise, Samastipur. A copy of the said telegram was attached by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice. The reply to the show cause notice duly appears in the Paper Book. The respondent had taken the plea that there was no contravention of the Excise rules and demand of duty under Rule 49 could only be made if the respondent had failed to account for any goods in the manner provided in the Central Excise Rules or which was not shown to the satisfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the show cause notice does not say that there is contravention of Rule 47 and in the show cause notice there is reference of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has pleaded that there was an accident which was beyond the control of the respondent. He has pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent. There was destruction of goods due to accident and the respondent had suffered a storage loss. The demand for Central Excise duty will be additional burden on the respondent if the appeal filed by the Revenue is accepted. He has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal and has submitted that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct in law. 4. After hearing both the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss or destruction. When the local Central Excise Officer was present at the time when the fire was raging, no formal notice was necessary. It was so held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jawahir Lal v. Collector of Central Excise. Verma J.H. Ct. All. D/18-21-66 Misc. Writ 1635/60. Extract taken from page 701 from the Law of Central Excise, Second Edition of Taraporevala Parikh. (Not cited by the parties). In the case of Sialkot Industrial Corporation, Meerut v. Union of India Another reported in 1979 Vol. No. E.L.T. (J 329) it was held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court that the expression lost or destroyed in Section 23 of Customs Act, 1962 is used in the generic and comprehensive sense and not in a narrow sense. It postulates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
