9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant for grant of permission to remove the goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for financial year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of jumbo roll of self adhesive paper falling under Tariff 39 & 48 of the CETA, 1985 at its Pune unit. It has got permission of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, to remove the goods from the factory of manufacturer without payment of excise duty from Pune unit to Bangalore unit from the financial year 2011-12 till 2014-15. The appellant has alleged that they had strictly adhered to the procedures and compliances in relation to clearance of goods to B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise duty. The relevant Rule 16C is extracted below: "Rule 16C - Special procedure for removal of excisable goods for carrying out certain processes - The Commissioner of Central Excise may by special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified by him permit a manufacturer to remove excisable goods manufactured in his factory, without payment of duty, for carrying out tests or any other process not amounting to manufacture to any other premises whether or not registered and after carrying out such tests or any such other process may allow- a) bringing back such goods to the said factory without payment of duty for subsequent clearance for home consumption or export as the case may be or b) removal of such goods from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out test or any other process not amounting to manufacture. The said discretion must be exercised by the department to benefit the assessee and facilitate trade and manufacturer of goods. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following decision, wherein it was held that the administrative discretion must be used judiciously and not arbitrarily: a) Bengal Rolling Mills Ltd., Vs. CEGAT - 2004 (168) ELT 441 (Cal) b) Sharda Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2008 (228) ELT 312 (Tri-Del) 5.3 He also submitted that by following the procedure under Rule 16C, the appellant has in fact paid more duty to the Pune Commissionerate. Had the permission under Rule 16C not being accorded to the appellant then the appellant would be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e checked in for the month of April, May and June 2015 by surprise visit by the Range Superintendent by making a visit to the factory at Pune once in every month. The Bench directed the AR to find out whether any violation was committed by the appellant during these three months period. The learned AR after getting feed back from the Pune Commissionerate submitted that during the grace period the department did not find any violation committed by the appellant. 8. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and have perused the records of the case. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has been granted the permission under Rule 16C of the Rules to remove the goods without payment of duty for carrying out certain p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
