9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliberately would indulge in an exercise which may result in huge loss and that the view while interpreting Rule 21 of the CER, 2002 the authorities are required to be liberal and that the restrictive construction to Rule 21 would make it inoperable and redundant - the present case is fit for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1169/2011-EX[SM] - A/70754/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-7-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated through impugned Order-in-Original No.16(Rem)/Comm/M-II/2011 dated 25/01/2011. The Original Authority has held that if the regular examination was being done, the localized rupturing would have been noticed and safety measures such as empting the tank could have been taken by way of transferring the same to Tank No.1 where the molasses stored were less than its total capacity and that the appellant has never established that the impugned goods were not fit for human consumption or marketable and, therefore, Original Authority has held that the appellant's case was not covered by the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Through the said Order-in-Original No.16(Rem)/Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esident of Tribunal As regards the plea that the accident was avoidable it is suffice to say that every accident is on account of lack of precaution on the part of the personnel responsible for avoiding such incident. Nobody deliberately would indulge in an exercise which may result in huge loss. Therefore, we are of the view that interpreting Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the authorities are required to be liberal otherwise restrictive construction to Rule 21 would make it inoperable and redundant. In our aforesaid view, we are supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Union of India Versus Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [reported at 2009 (233) E.L.T. 61 (Rajasthan)]. He has further argued that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such interpretation have been laid down by Hon'ble President of CESTAT in the said case of U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra) wherein he has held that nobody deliberately would indulge in an exercise which may result in huge loss and that the view while interpreting Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the authorities are required to be liberal and that the restrictive construction to Rule 21 would make it inoperable and redundant. Therefore, I find that the present case is fit for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Original wherein the remission application was rejected and duty demand was confirmed along with interest thereon. I, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
