9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized 203 cases of Gutkha under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in May'98 alleging violation of the provisions of the said Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 31-7-2003 ordered for destruction of the said goods as the goods were smelling bad and not fit for human consumption. As such the appellant by its letter dated 6-8-2003 requested the Commissioner of Central Excise for remission of duty of Rs. 5,06,688/- on stock of Pan Parag Gold Gutkha 203 cases. By order dated 2-11-2004, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application dated 6-8-2003 for remission of Central Excise Duty. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing". 5. On plain reading of the Rule, it is clear that remission of duty is permissible subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by accident or unfit for human consumption or for marketing at any time before removal. Thus, Rule 21 placed limitation to the satisfaction of Commissioner for granting permission for remission of duty. In this case, the ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class held that the seized goods are unfit for human consumption and ordered that the seized goods be destroyed. It is revealed from the impugned order that the Commissioner is also satisfied that the goods are unfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest for remission of duty to the party on the ground that they stored more molasses in the masonry tank then the storage capacity and they did not take ample and sufficient steps for cooling down the temperature when it was rising. But, the Tribunal allowed remission of duty as molasses unfit for consumption or marketing. Similarly, in the present case, the Commissioner observed that the goods were seized due to their faults and decayed pending litigation in the Court, and such goods do not deserve remission of duty. On perusal of the order of the ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, there is no finding that the goods were seized due to the appellants' fault and therefore, such finding of the Commissioner is not sustainable. At any event, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
