Advance notice for destruction of excisable goods is not rigid where supervision is ensured and records are properly maintained.

The notice requirement for destruction of excisable goods was treated as a supervisory safeguard rather than an inflexible bar in hazardous-goods situations. The rule requiring seven days' advance intimation had to be read with the Commissioner's discretion to regulate destruction by general or special order, so the practical purpose of notice was departmental supervision. Where the assessee gave prior intimation from time to time, maintained records of production, destruction and returns, and the goods required recurring destruction at short notice, shorter notice did not by itself defeat remission. The duty demand on the destroyed hydrochloric acid was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement of seven days' advance intimation before destruction of excisable goods was mandatory in the facts of the case, and whether duty could be demanded on hydrochlroic acid destroyed by the assessee after giving shorter prior notice.

Analysis: The rules required the owner to inform the proper officer in writing of the quantity to be destroyed and the date of proposed destruction at least seven days in advance. The Court read this requirement with the discretionary power of the Commissioner to prescribe conditions for destruction by general or special order. It held that the purpose of the notice was to enable supervision and that, where the goods were hazardous and needed recurring destruction at short notice, the authorities were expected to exercise the discretion contemplated by the rule. In the circumstances, the assessee had intimated the department from time to time and maintained records of production, destruction and returns, so the mere fact that the notice period was less than seven days could not justify denial of relief.

Conclusion: The seven-day notice requirement was not treated as an inflexible bar on the facts, and the duty demand on the destroyed goods was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme for destruction of excisable goods contemplates departmental supervision and confers discretion to regulate the manner of destruction, the notice requirement must be applied in a manner consistent with the nature of the goods and the surrounding circumstances, and short prior intimation will not by itself defeat remission where the assessee has otherwise given prior notice and maintained proper records.

---