9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly if such goods are returned to the factory of the same manufacturer or any other manufacturer. This condition prescribed in Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules is not applicable to the appellant since the goods i.e. ATF has not been returned to the factory. Remission of duty u/r 21 - claim of remission on the ground that the goods have become unfit for consumption - Held that: - such remission of duty is applicable only to the manufacturer where such goods have been manufactured - In the present case, since the ATF has not been manufactured in the appellants premises, Rule 21 is not applicable to the appellant. Refund of duty paid on the ATF cannot be considered in terms of Rule 5, Rule 16 or even Rule 21 - appeal dismissed - decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the evaporation of the solvent. Since, in view of the above, goods were rendered unfit for supply as ATF, in national interest and in order to avoid wastage of this huge quantity of the material, the appellant decided to downgrade the existing stock of ATF to superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and release it for Public Distribution System (PDS). For this, ATF was transferred to the tanks storing SKO, then, blue dye was added in such ATF to give it a blue color, as is required for SKO supplied in PDS, as per the directive of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 3. It is pertinent to mention that SKO meant for PDS is entitled to nil rate of duty, under sl. No.20 of Notification no.4/2006-CE. With regard to non-duty paid ATF converted into SKO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules since the goods have been rendered unfit for consumption before the removal of the same from the warehouse. 6. Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants premises is not registered as a manufacturer but as a dealer. In the circumstances of the present case, the appellant could have returned ATF to the manufacturer in terms of the Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for taking credit of the duty paid as well as for reprocessing. In the absence of following any such procedure he submitted that the refund cannot be granted to the appellant. 7. The facts of the case are not disputed. The appellant, who is holding Central Excise Registration as a dealer, received ATF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
