TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, as made in this case, are that the respondents, M/s. Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. stored 95,567.62 quintals of molasses of different sugar years from 1981-82 to 1984-85 in open katcha pits after executing Special B-2 bonds to the effect that in case of loss or damage of molasses, they would not claim remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and that, they would pay duty within 10 days of the demand made in writing. 3. The stock of molasses in katcha pit Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 was examined by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Motihari, in presence of the representative of the assessee on 7-2-1986 and the stock appeared prima facie deteriorated. In view of the special bond executed by the assessee and departmental ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued out of the place or premises specified under Rule 9 or are about to be removed from a store-room or other place of storage approved by the Collector under Rule 47: Provided that the manufacturer shall on demand pay the duty leviable on any goods which are not accounted for in the manner specifically provided in these rules, or which are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident during handling or storage in such store-room or other approved premises: Provided further that the proper officer 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 by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand beyond Rs. 5,000/-. In the instant case, the demand has been issued for a sum of Rs. 2,86,702.86 p. The show cause notice has been issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range and the proceedings have been conducted by the Assistant Collector and the demand confirmed by him. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the Assistant Collector did not have the monetary jurisdiction as a proper officer under second proviso of Rule 49 to demand and confirm the duty liability, as the duty amount is more than the specified limit as per the notification referred to above. The show cause notice refers to Rule 49. The first proviso to Rule 49 gives power to the proper officer to raise a demand in terms of Rule 49. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority or even this Tribunal but a Court of law. Therefore, the Bench restrained itself from recording any finding as to the validity of the bond. In this appeal the question of validity of the bond has not been raised, but the revenue has come against the finding of the Collector (Appeals) with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector. We have clearly noticed from the notifications issued by the Board that the monetary limits beyond Rs. 5000/- is vested only with the Collector. As the Assistant Collector did not have the monetary limits to demand duty, the findings arrived at by the Collector (Appeals) is not assailable. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be rejected. We order accordingl....