TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orage had been obtained. It is seen from the records that the molasses weighing 52,230 quintals had deteriorated and had become unfit for use. During the relevant time, the molasses was controlled by the State Excise Department and no quantity of molasses could be removed without their permission. Molasses is an important input for alcohol and the control by the State Excise Department appeared to be strict. The appellants sought permission from the State Excise Department for draining out of the damaged molasses. The permission by those authorities was granted. Thereafter, they intimated the Central Excise Department. 2. Shri H.P. Arora, ld. Advocate submitted that the Central Excise Department did not take any steps either to grant per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r duty on the goods actually destroyed was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal have further observed that as the goods were destroyed without the permission of Central Excise authorities, the imposition of penalty was justified. Para 6 from that decision is extracted below :- 6. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. I find that the appellant had sent a letter to the Superintendent, Central Excise on 4-3-1989 intimating inter alia that goods were not marketable as per the certificate given by the Alcohol Technologist nor were they fit for human consumption and also that the District Excise Authorities had permitted them to destroy the goods by draining out the molasses. Molasses were actually drained out on 8-3-1989. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for claiming remission of duty is that the goods are destroyed in a manner so that these are irretrievable as such goods. Destruction of the goods in the instant case is not disputed by the Department. Therefore, the breach of any other procedural condition which may have been prescribed by the Collector may involve imposition of liability to duty for breach of procedure. Imposition of liability to duty for breach of procedure is not called for. Accordingly, the demand of duty in the impugned order is set aside." On examination of facts in the instant case and comparing the same with those considered by the Tribunal in the order cited (supra), I find that the facts in both the cases are identical. No doubt there was a certificate from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
