9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is brand cancelled from Director (Audit), the authority competent to approve brands of cigarettes. Later they filed, in the first instance, on 3.8.87 with the Collector Central Excise (the respondent herein) an application to seek permission to rip open the cigarettes and reuse the tobacco for a different brand of cigarettes. They had reminded the Collector vide their letters 7.10.87 & 1.2.88 to give his approval expeditiously. The appellants claim that the Collector had been duly apprised of the deteriorating condition of the cigarettes and the perishable nature of the commodity. Since no approval came, the appellants allege, they applied on 23.4.88 for destruction of the cigarettes under the provisions of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owest possible price is such that no customer is available at that price. The last mentioned situation may arise in the case of goods where specific rate of duty rather than on the basis of value of the goods has been imposed so that the price cannot be lower than that element of duty. In these circumstances, to refuse permission to destroy the goods is clearly untenable. Excise duty is an indirect tax whose incidence generally falls on the consumers of the goods. Though strictly speaking, the event of excise duty occurs at the time of manufacturer of the goods, it is a tax on consumption of the goods within the country of production. That is the well-known and well-accepted concept of excise duty in fact as well as in law in this country. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason, I am tentatively of the view, that the words "claimed by the manufacturer" have been advisedly used in the 2nd proviso to Rule 49(1). In other words, it is the 'claim' of the manufacturer that these are unfit for marketing or for consumption (and therefore consequent destruction) which would entitle him to non-liability of duty. If this view is not acceptable, the second proviso to Rule 49(1) would have been to the effect :- "Provided further that the proper officer may not demand duty due on any goods which are unfit for consumption or for marketing subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Collector by order in writing." rather than what it is, as reproduced below :- "Provided further that the proper officer may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asi-judicial enquiry involving observance of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court observed as follows :- "Now it is obvious that under clause (vi), the discovery by the Income Tax Officer that the statement on oath made on behalf of the garnishee is false in any material particular has the consequence of imposing personal liability for payment on the garnishee and it must therefore be a quasi-judicial decision preceded by a quasi-judicial enquiry involving observance of the principles of natural justice." (emphasis supplied) Here also, the appellant has stated that goods for which he seeks permission to destroy are unfit for consumption or marketing Collector's refusal disentitles the appellant to non-liability of any duty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
