Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(158)ELT332(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (Technical)
1. We have heard both sides. The appellants requested for permission to store molasses in kutcha pits as their steel tank was full. The Commissioner allowed them to store molasses in kutcha pits on the condition of payment of Central Excise duty. However, the appellants removed the molasses for storage in kutcha pits but without payment of duty. The lower authorities have confirmed the duty demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000/- in each case. Shri K.P. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellants states that the permission to remove molasses should not have been made conditional neither under Rule 49 nor under Rule 173H which has been quoted in the Commissioner's letter. He has cited the following decision in support of his contention:-
(1) Shri Dudhganga-Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Twelve Other Sakhar Karkhanas and Ors. v. CCE, Pune & Aurangabad - 1987 (29) ELT 22 (Tribunal).
(2) Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - 1998 (100) ELT 513 (Tribunal).
He also states that the molasses after removal to kutcha pits, have deteriorated due to mixing with rain water etc. but the application for remission of duty separately made to the Commissioner has been rejected by the Superintendent.
2. We have heard Shri Hitesh Shah, learned J.D.R. for Revenue.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the present case is different from the ones earlier considered by the Tribunal in the aforecited decisions. In the present case, the Commissioner has made removal of the molasses to kutcha pits, which are not approved place of storage as noted in the impugned order-in-appeal, subject to prior payment of duty. Citing of Rule 173H may not be appropriate but there is nothing wrong in the conditional permission of removal given by the Commissioner to safeguard the Revenue. It was not open to the appellants to remove the molasses to the kutcha pits in terms of the said permission violating the condition regarding payment of duty without seeking a modification from the Commissioner. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities are correct in demanding duty from the appellants since the molasses have been removed without payment of duty from the appellant's factory. The penalty imposed has already been reduced to Rs. 1,000/- in each case and the same does not call for any further reduction.
Appeals are rejected.
(Pronounced in Court on 23.9.03)