2002 (7) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral Excise, whereby the request for remission of duty on the goods destroyed in fire was declined. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of acrylic yarns. On 4-3-98, appellants made a request to the Supdt. (Central Excise) regarding storage of finished goods in their raw material godown. On 16-3-98, appellants informed Range Office about a fire incide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the store room. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants sent intimation on 4-3-98 informing the Range Supdt. regarding storage of finished goods in their raw material godown and this intimation was sufficient as Range Supdt. was the appropriate authority for approving the place of storage of finished goods. The premises in which the goods were stored were the registered premises .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants stored the goods at a place, which was not approved for the purpose. The appellants had not sought any permission to store the goods in a place other than the store room nor any permission was granted. As the appellants stored the goods in an unapproved place, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. In this case, the appellants, vide letter dated 4-3-98, informed the Range Supdt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X