TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether refuse of excisable goods received under Chapter X Procedure could be destroyed without payment of duty under Rule 195 of the Central Excise Rules, or whether duty was payable by applying Rule 196B of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: Rule 195 is a general provision governing disposal of refuse remaining after completion of an industrial process, whereas Rule 196B applies to goods found damaged or defective at the time of receipt. The authorities below had proceeded only on Rule 196B and had not examined the case under Rule 195. Where the goods sought to be destroyed were defective or damaged, and the damage could be attributed to the manufacturing process rather than to their condition on receipt, the correct provision to apply was Rule 195. The expression relating to goods damaged "on receipt" in Rule 196B was not to be read narrowly so as to defeat the broader scheme of the rules. The record also showed that the department had earlier accepted destruction without duty in similar proceedings.
Conclusion: The denial of permission and the demand of duty were not sustainable. The refusal was set aside and destruction without payment of duty was held permissible.
TaxTMI 
