TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order does not mention any specific reasons as to how the appellant is not found deserving for grant of permission under Rule 16C of the Rules. Revenue has also failed to prove that the appellant has committed any violation of the terms and conditions and procedure prescribed by the learned Commissioner while granting the permission. In view of these circumstances, we hold that denial of permission under Rule 16C is not legally sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/85960/15 - Final Order No. A/2167/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - P K Jain, Member (T) And S S Garg, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Puneet Bansal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri V K Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2014 seeking further extension of the permission under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 mainly on the ground that the appellant's case cannot be considered to be falling under the category of deserving case as is prescribed under the Board's Circular No.844/02/2007-CX dated 31/01/2007. Secondly, the respondent in the impugned order has given a finding that the appellant has violated the prescribed procedure and conditions of Rule 16C as well as Rule 12AA of the Rules. Now the appellant has challenged the impugned order before us. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 16C provides that the jurisdictional Commissioner of the Central Excise may permit the manufacture to remove the goods from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned in the said letter which includes maintenance of proper records of dispatch, receipt and inventory of goods both at the Pune unit as well as Bangalore unit, clearance of goods on payment of applicable excise duty from the Bangalore unit, clearance of waste/scrap from Bangalore unit on payment of excise duty, etc. 5.1 The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 24/03/2015 has failed to point out even a single instance, where the appellant has violated the procedure laid down in Rule 16C or Rule 12AA of the Rules. He also submitted that in case of any violation of Rule 16C or Rule 12AA, the department could have issued a show-cause notice to the appellant but the fact is that no show-cause notice was ever is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. He submitted that the procedure as envisaged under Rule 16C of the Rule granting permission to remove the goods without payment of excise duty is a special procedure and can only be granted in deserving cases. In this case, the learned Commissioner has not found the appellant's case as deserving for extension of permission under Rule 16C for the year 2015-16. On being specifically asked by the Bench as to whether the appellant has violated any of the conditions or procedure prescribed in Rule 16C during the past years or any prejudice caused to the Revenue, in case permission 16C is granted, he replied in negative. Further more, it is pertinent to mention that while passing the impugned order, the learned Commissioner allowed a gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 16C of the Rules. Revenue has also failed to prove that the appellant has committed any violation of the terms and conditions and procedure prescribed by the learned Commissioner while granting the permission. In view of these circumstances, we hold that denial of permission under Rule 16C is not legally sustainable. 8.1 In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24/03/2015. Consequently, we allow the appeal of the appellant. We further direct the Commissioner, Pune to grant the permission to the appellant under Rule 16C of the Rules for the financial year 2015-2016 by keeping in view commercial necessity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
