9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods and since there is a provision for destruction of rejected goods, both within the factory as well as outside, by applying the same ratio, their damaged/destroyed goods should also be treated as rejected goods and it is also to be treated as if they have been already destroyed inside the factory itself. It is found that this stretching the provision is not permissible, inasmuch there is very clear cut case where only four categories of goods are covered for destruction either within the factory or outside the factory, but subject to presence of Central Excise officer. The goods which have been clearly damaged or destroyed in the floods cannot fall in any of these categories nor there is evidence that such materials were stored as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... God and such destroyed goods could be considered as rejected goods and EOU has option to destroy the same within its premises vide clause 3(iii) of the said notification. Therefore, by treating such destroyed/damaged goods as rejected goods and by virtue of the said notification, they should be treated as if they were destroyed within the factory. They have also relied on the decisions in the case of Sami Labs Ltd., Aditya Industries and Tristarr Hortitech, etc. 3. On the other hand, learned AR points out that the notification is very clear that in case the goods, other than capital goods, are not proved to the satisfaction of the officer to have been used in connection with the production or packaging of goods for export out of India, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries nor there is evidence that such materials were stored as scrap material or rejected in the factory. We find that this is a conditional notification and in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar and Co. & Ors [2018 (7) TMI 1826 (SC)], it has to be construed strictly and by the plain reading of the said notification, in the given factual matrix, the destroyed goods due to floods etc., would not get covered and there is no provision in the said notification for remitting the duty in a situation like natural disaster, etc. Further, we note that the case laws cited by the appellant are also not applicable as those cases are in relation to remission of Central Excise duty in terms of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
