9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/2004 in the premises of the appellant, M/s. Deepa Cotton. The ground adduced for rejection of remission application is that the godown of the appellant situated in 1 st floor of the appellant's premises at H.No. 1286, Shankeshwar Compund, Narpoli, Bhiwandi was not part of the registered premises of the appellant. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a new assessee who came under the purview of the Excise levy in 2003 when excise levy was brought on grey fabrics. There was a simplified registration procedure prescribed vide Circular No. 708/24/2003-CX dated 23/04/2003 for powerloom weavers/hand processors/dealers of yarns and fabrics/manufacturers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereon. Thereafter on 03/12/2007 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny the remission of the duty applied for by the appellant and the impugned order has been passed. The department did not object to storage of finished goods in the godown at first floor has been treated as part of the appellant's factory and clearance therefrom on payment of duty. Only when the question of remission arose, the department took a different stand and wanted to deny the benefit of remission. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sportking India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2002 (145) ELT 535 (Tri-Del) wherein it was held that when finished goods are stored in unapproved area which was destr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remission of the duty payable. From the records, it is seen that as early as in September 2003 the appellant had intimated to the department that their godown is in the 1 st floor and the department had never objected to the storage of non-duty paid finished goods in the said godown. Even on 11 April 2005 when the department wrote to the appellant, they were only asked to reverse the Cenvat Credit taken on the inputs contained in the finished goods. There was no demand of duty on the finished goods stored in the godown, which also shows that the department has always been treating the godown in the 1 st floor as part of the approved premises. In these circumstances, the stand taken by the department for denial of remission stating that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
