TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules no excise duty on seized sandalwood oil</h1> <h3>PREMIER PERFUMERY WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALICUT</h3> PREMIER PERFUMERY WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALICUT - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 80 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Liability for duty on seized sandalwood oil.2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Seizure of goods by State Forest Department and its impact on excise duty liability.Analysis:1. Liability for duty on seized sandalwood oil:The case involved a dispute regarding the liability for duty on 16.1 kg of sandalwood oil seized by the State Forest Department from the stock of excisable goods of the appellants. The Revenue sought to demand duty on the seized goods, while the appellants argued that since they had not removed the goods from the factory, no liability for duty arises on them. The Order-in-Original favored the appellants, emphasizing that the seizure by the State Forest Department cannot be considered as removal under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Despite a similar favorable order by the Commissioner (A) in a previous case, the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order accepted the Revenue's Review Petition, leading to the appeal.2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules to determine the applicability of duty liability in the case of seized goods. It was observed that the goods in question were within the factory premises, not removed, and no attempt was made for their removal. The Tribunal concluded that the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department, despite being entered in the RG-I Register, does not constitute removal under Rule 9(1). The Tribunal highlighted that the previous favorable orders by the Order-in-Original and the Commissioner (A) were legally sound, emphasizing that the confirmation of demands by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order was incorrect in law.3. Seizure of goods by State Forest Department and its impact on excise duty liability:The key issue revolved around whether the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department, which were duly entered in the RG-I Register, should trigger excise duty liability. The Tribunal clarified that such seizure, when the goods were not removed or attempted to be removed by the appellants, does not fall under the purview of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. By setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s confirmation of demands and allowing the appeal, the Tribunal affirmed that the seizure of goods by the State Forest Department within the factory premises does not attract excise duty liability, as per the legal provisions and precedents cited in the case.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis reaffirmed the appellants' position regarding the non-liability for duty on the seized sandalwood oil, emphasizing the legal interpretation of Rule 9(1) and the impact of goods seizure by the State Forest Department on excise duty liability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
