1996 (10) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m outside under Chapter X procedure for packing ghee in these containers. The appellants informed the Supdt., Central Excise of the range that 7334 tins/containers of various sizes and capacity were damaged during storage/handling. The Department alleged that the appellants failed to utilise the non-duty paid tins/containers of various sizes and capacity in the manner as prescribed in Rule 192 read with Notification No. 181/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 as amended. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why central excise duty amounting to Rs. 14,274.02 should not be demanded from them. The appellants, in reply to the show cause notice, submitted that they have been showing such figures of dama....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmissions made by the appellants held that it was incorrect that the noticee had been showing a number of containers gone waste during packing under Column (7) of RT 11 return; that Column (7) of RT 11 return reads "as wastage or dryage or other loss in storage liable types of wastage, dryage or loss related to goods while in storage." The 1d. A.C. held that since the noticee had shown losses in storage, the demand in the showcause notice issued to them under Rule 196(2)(iii) is sustainable. The 1d. A.C. after holding as above confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,274.02. In appeal against this order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the A.C. and hence the appeal before me. 3. Shri P. Das, the ld. SDR was heard in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his satisfaction has relied on Column (7) of RT 11 return and has held that Column (7) does not provide for damaged containers in the course of storage/packing. I find that the purpose of providing Column (7) of RT 11 return is to indicate all sorts of cases covered by Rule 196 and not only the types mentioned in Column (7) of RT 11 return. Since Column (7) shows that some containers were damaged in the course of storage/handling, I do not see any reason to accept that tin containers were damaged in the course of storage-cum-handling were shown properly. In the circumstances, I find that there is no other account by which the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector could be held as not satisfied. I find that Rule 196 clearly covers the type....