1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal grants duty remission to appellant under Central Excise Rules</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner's denial of ... Remission of duty – Appellant requested for remission of duty on the seized 203 cases but rejected Commissioner – Respective authority decided that it is fit case for remission of duty and impugned order is set aside. Issues:1. Remission of duty under Central Excise Act for goods seized under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding remission of duty.3. Commissioner's satisfaction on goods being unfit for consumption or marketing.4. Comparison with precedent cases regarding remission of duty.Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Pan Parag Gutkha, seeking remission of duty under the Central Excise Act for 203 cases of Gutkha seized by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner should grant remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the goods were deemed unfit for marketing or consumption. The Commissioner rejected the remission, stating the goods became inedible due to reasons beyond the appellant's control. The counsel cited relevant case laws to support their argument.3. The Tribunal examined Rule 21, which allows remission if goods are lost, destroyed by natural causes, or claimed as unfit for consumption or marketing. The Commissioner acknowledged the goods were unfit for consumption but denied remission, demanding proof of unintended reasons beyond the appellant's control. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's denial unjustified when goods were deemed unfit for consumption or marketing.4. Precedent cases like Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. were referenced to support the appellant's claim for remission. These cases highlighted instances where goods were unfit for marketing, leading to remission of duty. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case warranted remission, setting aside the Commissioner's decision and allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the Commissioner's satisfaction on goods being unfit for consumption or marketing as sufficient grounds for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
