2014 (8) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../2004 in the premises of the appellant, M/s. Deepa Cotton. The ground adduced for rejection of remission application is that the godown of the appellant situated in 1 st floor of the appellant's premises at H.No. 1286, Shankeshwar Compund, Narpoli, Bhiwandi was not part of the registered premises of the appellant. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a new assessee who came under the purview of the Excise levy in 2003 when excise levy was brought on grey fabrics. There was a simplified registration procedure prescribed vide Circular No. 708/24/2003-CX dated 23/04/2003 for powerloom weavers/hand processors/dealers of yarns and fabrics/manufacturers of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thereon. Thereafter on 03/12/2007 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny the remission of the duty applied for by the appellant and the impugned order has been passed. The department did not object to storage of finished goods in the godown at first floor has been treated as part of the appellant's factory and clearance therefrom on payment of duty. Only when the question of remission arose, the department took a different stand and wanted to deny the benefit of remission. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sportking India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2002 (145) ELT 535 (Tri-Del) wherein it was held that when finished goods are stored in unapproved area which was destro....