https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72845 Questions concerning remission of duty under the second proviso to Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were treated largely as factual rather than referable legal questions. On the facts, the manufacturer had informed excise authorities that the goods had become unfit for consumption or marketing and had notified the intended destruction dates; the authorities' failure to respond in time did not justify denial of remission. The Supreme Court ruling on copper waste and scrap was held inapplicable because it concerned a different marketable-scrap context and did not control the scope of the proviso. The reference applications were therefore rejected as not fit for reference. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2011 14:29:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72845 Questions concerning remission of duty under the second proviso to Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were treated largely as factual rather than referable legal questions. On the facts, the manufacturer had informed excise authorities that the goods had become unfit for consumption or marketing and had notified the intended destruction dates; the authorities' failure to respond in time did not justify denial of remission. The Supreme Court ruling on copper waste and scrap was held inapplicable because it concerned a different marketable-scrap context and did not control the scope of the proviso. The reference applications were therefore rejected as not fit for reference. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72845