9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Daman, vide the impugned order dated 26.03.2008 rejecting their application for remission of Central Excise duty. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Ld Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they had sent a letter dtd 31st Oct. 2005 to the department seeking permission for the destruction of the subject goods and remission of Central Excise duty thereon. His submission is that the officers were bound to act upon the said request within 21 days as per the CBCE manual, CH 18 Part-I which discusses about remission of duty and destruction of goods. He contents that they were not given the permission for destroying the goods within the said time limit, and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details of the goods and reason for destruction along with the proof that the goods have become unfit for consumption or for marketing, such as report of chemical test or any other test, conducted by a Government recognized laboratory. Further as per part (vii) of the said chapter, the actual destruction of goods should be supervised by the officers according to the monetary limits specified in column (4) of the Table in part 1.2 above. The date and time for destruction should be fixed by mutual convenience of the proper officer and the assessee and it should be ensured that the same date and time are not fixed for more that one assessee. It should also be ensured that there is no inordinate delay once permission for destruction and remis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Manual. Further, they have destroyed the said goods without reversing the CENVAT credit involved in the inputs contained in such finished goods and thereby, they rendered their Remission Application liable for rejection. " The Ld Authorised Representative further submitted that the Range Officer had requested the appellant vide his letter dtd 19.12.2005 to submit the inventory details of RG1 Register. He submits that the appellant instead of giving reply to the same destroyed the goods on 11th Jan, 2006 on their own without intimating the department the exact date and time of destruction of the goods. He further submits that the Central Excise Manual on destruction of goods only states that the necessary permission should be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above provisions, I find that it has been prescribed that the assessee should apply to the Range office for destruction indicating complete details of the goods and reason for destruction alongwith the proof that the goods have become unfit for consumption or for marketing such as report of chemical test or any other test conducted by a Government recognized laboratory. Destruction should be conducted only after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority and only in presence of competent supervising officer. The said supervising officer will conduct physical verification of the quantity of the goods to be destroyed. Also the CENVAT credit involved on inputs contained in finished goods should also be reversed. 9. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, seeks permission to remove goods from their BSR on 13.01.2006. I further find that the noticee did not put forth any argument or did not supply any supporting documents for their permission for destruction of goods. When the matter was under correspondence, they were supposed not to conduct destruction on their own will. I also find that the notice have not given sufficient time to the department for examination of their request for destruction and conducted destruction themselves. I find that the notice has defended that the Commissioner is to grant necessary permission within 21 days and due to non-receipt of the same within such period, they conducted destruction. However, it is seen that the assessee did not forward the detailed list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts is the decision of the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Godrej Food Ltd vs Union of India [1995(75)ELT.777]. In the said case, assessee had furnished information sought by the Dept on the next day and thereafter on not receiving any further communication from the Dept. for a long time, destroyed the goods. The facts of these cases are different from the facts of the instant case and therefore they are not applicable herein. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority and hence the same is upheld. 10. Appeal No E/10447/2013, is filed by Appellant aggrieved by the Order in Appeal dated 19.02.2013 of Commissioner (Appeals) on the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
