2010 (8) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation filed by the appellants for remission of duty. The said application was filed on the ground that the goods had been rendered non-marketable for various reasons. The Commissioner by the impugned order has held that the appellants failed to produce sufficient material in support of their claim that the goods was unfit for marketing and that they did not establish that they had ever tried to sell the goods in question either by way of auction or tender process. In that view of the matter, it has been held that the appellants failed to satisfy the Excise Officers about unfitness of the goods for marketing. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants drawing our attention to Rule 21 submitted that the said provision of law requires tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d five hundred rupees it would be for the Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in place of Commissioner to be satisfied for necessary order under the said rule. 5. Undoubtedly, the rule provides that it is for the manufacturer to claim that the goods are unfit for consumption or for marketing. Nevertheless, the order granting remission has to be passed by the competent authority specified under the said rule on being satisfied about such claim. For the purpose of satisfaction of such claim, obviously the manufacturer has to produce necessary material in support of such claim. 6. In the case in hand, the appellants had filed an application for remission on the ground that the goods in question....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order does not disclose any such analysis. 8. In case of an application claiming the goods to be unfit for marketing, undoubtedly, it would be also necessary for the claimant to produce evidence regarding the same. 9. The provision of law comprised under Rule 21 which speaks about the satisfaction of the Commissioner relates to the claim made by the manufacturer. Such a claim may not necessarily relate only to the conditions in which the goods are found. While deciding about genuineness of the claim, it would be necessary for the adjudicating authority to take into consideration all the grounds based on which such claim is made. Merely because the goods can be sold either by way of auction or tender that cannot be a g....