TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bonded Store Room without permission, and destruction of same in the absence of supervision/permission are clearly not in accordance with the provisions. In the case of M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals vs CCE, Vapi [2014 (2) TMI 1007 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] relied upon by the Appellants, the issue was remission of duty of the goods, which were destroyed in flood. In the case of BIOPAC INDIA CORPN LTD vs CCE, Vapi (2007 (11) TMI 213 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ) the issue was finished and semi finished goods destroyed in fire. The other relied upon case law by the appellants is the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Godrej Food Ltd vs Union of India [1994 (4) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE ]. In the said case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin 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 that the goods were clearly beyond the expiry date. They had destroyed the goods on 11th Jan. 2006 in the presence of the Asstt. Commissioner, Food Drugs Control , Admn. He, therefore, argues that there is no impropriety on illegality on their part. He also submits he had informed the dept vide his letter dtd 13th Dec. that they are going to destroy the said goods between 5th Jan. to 15th Jan. He also relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of BIOPAC INDIA CORPN LTD vs CCE, Vapi [2008(224)ELT.548(Tri.Ahmd)] 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 remission is granted. d) The assessee was aware of the procedures as laid down under Part I of Chapter 18 of the CBEC Excise Manual in respect of Remission of Duty and Destruction of Goods. However, in the instant case it was found that the asSessee have not followed the proper procedure as prescribed in Chapter 18. The assessee had not applied to their Range office for destruction of their finished goods i.e. 280597 units totally valued at ₹ 1,34,59,048 and remission of Central Excise duty involved there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods 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 granted within a period of 21 days, if possible. It also says that where samples are drawn such permission should be granted within 45 days . He further brings to the attention of the Bench the letter of appellant dtd 13.1.2006 addressed to the Range Officer, where they have sought permission to remove the goods from BSR (Bonded Store-Room) for destruction. He points out that on the said date of Jan. 13, the goods have already been destroyed and the action of the appellant in seeking permission t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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 instant case, I find that the notice have simply intimated to the Head Quarter office without furnishing any documents in support of their contention that the goods are unfit for marketing or unfit for consumption. I find that in case goods become unfit for consumption or for marketing, report of chemical test or any other test conducted by a Government recognized laboratory must be produced. Even subsequently also, the assessee were not bothered to supply the said supporting documents t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of goods to be destroyed, as required by R.O. vide letter dated 19.12.2005. Further no proof towards their claim that goods are unfit for consumption or for marketing as required under para 1.4 (i) of CBEC S Central Excise annual were submitted. When these details were sought, instead of submitting these details to the Department, the assessee chose to destroy the goods first and then make a correspondence on 13.01.2006. 7. We find that the Dept. had written to the appellant on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
