Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (4) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cturing the Soya Milk since June, 1989. They were, however, in possession of unsold stock. Since the stock became unfit for the human consumption, the petitioners desired to destroy the stock. They, therefore, addressed a letter dated 20th April, 1990 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal, informing him about the stock of 5886 trays of Soya Milk, which had become unfit for human consumption. They also intimated the Department of their intention to destroy the stock because it had become unfit for human consumption. It was also brought to the notice of the Department that according to the Petitioners the product was exempt from payment of the Excise Duty. It was also stated in the letter that if nothing was heard within a fortni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stocks in the presence of panchas, after preparing a Panchanama. On 22-6-1990 the fact of destruction of the stock was reported to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal along with a copy of the Panchanama. On 22-6-1990 itself, the Supdt. Central Excise, Bhopal wrote to the petitioners objecting to the destruction on the ground that the petitioners failed to obtain any permission to do so and the destruction was done without supervision of the proper officer. In this letter dated 22-6-1990 the petitioners were called upon to explain the circumstances under which 5886 trays of the Soya Milk Great Shake, having the production value of Rs. 1,86,763.92 and excisable value of Rs. 2,05,374.30 were destroyed without payment of the Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s any goods to be unfit for marketing or for consumption and seeks destruction of the goods to avoid liability of Excise Duty, there is not much for the Authorities to probe into such a claim and refusing permission to destroy the goods would be untenable. It was further submitted that in view of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, the goods are not liable to duty, if they are unfit for consumption or marketing. The substantive claim for remission of duty would be that the goods are destroyed in a manner so that these are irretrievable as such goods. It was further submitted that in view of the bona fides of the petitioners, which are evident from the conduct in informing the Department and waiting for the De .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... show cause notice proceeded on the assumption that even if the goods were unfit for human consumption, they would still be goods attracting excise duty. The duty was demanded on the assumption that the goods were excisable goods. 7.The contention of the petitioner is that simply because certain article fell within the Schedule, it would not be dutiable under the Excise Law if the article was not "goods" known to the market. If the goods were unfit for consumption and, therefore, not marketable, they were not goods for the purposes of the Act and would not attract Excise Duty at all irrespective of whether the same goods if they were fit for human consumption would attract Excise Duty or not. The petitioners contend that even assuming that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the petitioners shall be free to destroy the goods by their convenience. On 16-5-1990 vide Annexure P-6 the Supdt. Central Excise, Bhopal, asked for the date of manufacture of the product, date of expiry, value of the product and quantity. This was specifically in response to the letter dated 20-4-1990 but without answering the question whether the Department agreed to destruction of the goods without a Departmental Representative being deputed. The required information was submitted on 16-5-1990 itself. The petitioners had still not destroyed the goods but on 24-5-1990 the Food Inspector in his inspection took objection to storing of the goods and demanded their destruction. On 25th May, 1990 the petitioners again wrote to the Asstt. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates