Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether any mistake apparent on record existed in the earlier order so as to justify rectification and recall of the dismissal of the assessee's claim for remission of duty on molasses.
Analysis: The storage of molasses was not specifically approved as required under Rule 47(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 49(1) postpones duty liability only until excisable goods are issued out of the place or premises specified under Rule 9 or are removed from a store-room or other place of storage approved by the Commissioner under Rule 47. On the facts, the open tanks used for storage were not approved, and the loss of molasses was attributed to negligence and carelessness rather than natural causes or an unavoidable accident. The application sought to reargue the appeal under the guise of rectification, which is impermissible.
Conclusion: No mistake apparent on record was made out, and the request for rectification was rejected. The earlier refusal of remission of duty was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish any apparent error warranting rectification, and the order declining remission of duty remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision on the merits where the impugned order is supported by the applicable rules governing approved storage and duty liability.