9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recycling and the second case they intimated the fact of removal 8 days after the event took place. A show cause notice was issued on 19-6-2007 requiring the appellant to pay duty on these goods on the ground that the appellant did not wait for permission to be given by the department before taking the goods out for recycling and therefore provisions of Rule 21 for remission would not be applicable. Besides demanding the duty penalty also has been imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The learned counsel submits that very fact that appellant intimated would show that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and there was no intention to misdeclare or suppress the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds as follows : "Remission of duty - Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing." It may be seen while an assessee is required to show that the goods have been destroyed or lost to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, in case of marketability, rule requires a claim by the manufacturer only and not satisfaction of the Commissioner. Therefore what is required is only a claim that the goods are not marketable and it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 would be available in this case. In my opinion the situation here is comparable to the provisions of Rule 16 and since the goods have not been removed on payment of duty, benefit of Notification No. 67/95 would be applicable. Under these circumstances, the extended period for demanding duty should not have been invoked at all in view of the fact that there can be two views on the statutory provisions themselves as discussed above. When there is a question of interpretation, extended period would not have been invoked. On merits also, I find no case for demanding the duty, interest and imposition of penalty. Accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
