TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. This appeal is against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad in which he has demanded duty on the clinker which was lost in transit by the appellant company. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement. It transported clinker manufactured in its unit at Dalla and Churk to its factory at Chunar. Clinker was ground into cement at the Chu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Since it was issued more than six months after the relevant date, it is barred by limitation. Provisions of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules will not apply in the present case. He disputes the Collector s finding that no shortage had been reported prior to 1986. He says that prior to this, the clinker had not been subjected to weighment at the receiving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. He cites decisions of this Tribunal in Bajaj Auto v. Collector of Central Excise - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 970 and IFFCO v. Collector of Central Excise - [1989 (41) E.L.T. 474] in support. 5. The clinker was being transported without payment of duty in terms of permission granted to the appellant under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 196 provides for recovery of duty on such goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of the power in question. The demand, therefore, cannot be held to be barred by limitation. 6. Rule 196 provides that it must be established to the decision of the proper officer that the loss in transit was due to natural causes or unavoidable accident. This has not been done in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
