TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n A. No. ED/SB/1386/84-NRB :- (i) Whether destruction of excisable goods without the permission of the competent Central Excise authorities and fulfilment of conditions as might have been imposed by the Collector of Central Excise by order in writing under Rule 49(i) but with the permission of the U.P. Excise authorities can be called a violation of technical nature, consequently setting aside the demand of duty and reduction in Penalty when the Rule 49 permits remission of duty only when the manufacturer claim their goods as unfit for consumption or for marketing before the proper Central Excise officers and subject to other condition as may be imposed by the Collector Central Excise by order in writing. (ii) Whether remission of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise officer that the excisable goods had become deteriorated is clearly ignoring the provisions of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules which clearly lays down that proper officer of Central Excise may not demand duty due on any goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing subject to such conditions as may be imposed. Therefore, to have drained out the molasses which are dutiable goods without complying with the provisions of Rule 49 as aforesaid is clearly a violation of Central Excise Rules. The plea that it was done with the approval of state excise authorities will not mitigate the offence........ . (v) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the conditions of second proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) and (v)-(vi) are merely questions of fact. Question raised at Sl. No. (iv) can be said at the most to be a question of law. He however, pointed out that the said order of the Tribunal is clearly wrong in applying the Supreme Court judgment to the facts and circumstances of that case of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works. Supreme Court had made an observation, according to the learned Advocate, in the context of scrap or waste manufactured as a marketable commodity during the process of manufacture of goods whereas in the case before this Bench or in the case of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works, molasses had already been manufactured and it had got deteriorated to have become unfit for marketing and consumption. Supreme Court was not. at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-9-1986 were passed. The only case cited before the Bench was the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills as stated in the said orders and that case was rightly distinguished by the learned Advocate Sh. H.P. Arora. Even otherwise, I agreed with the plea made by the learned Advocate for the respondent - non-applicant that the reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case of Triveni Metal and Engineering Works and accordingly the facts and circumstances of this case, that the judgment of Supreme Court, has rightly pointed out, does not determine the scope of second proviso to Rule 49(1). That judgment deals with much larger issue of the validi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
