TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission of duty involved on storage loss of molasses be allowed even without filing of remission application though prescribed specifically in the statute under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002?" From the record of the present appeal, we find that the adjudicating authority namely the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I, vide the Order-in-Original No.05/JC/04 dated 30.03.2004 held that the assessee was liable for payment of Rs. 5,40,192/- under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of loss of 10803.84 quintals of molasses. Penalty of like amount was also imposed upon the assessee. Not being satisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Meerut. The appeal came to be rejected u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been noticed that the storage and movement of the molasses is controlled by the U.P. Excise Authority inasmuch as molasses is ultimately used for manufacturing of alcohol potable as well as non-potable. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the assessing authority as well as appellate authority. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the present excise appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the department questioning the reasoning of Tribunal submitted that the circular which has been relied upon by the Tribunal only fixes the outer limit in the matter of treating the loss of the excisable goods as one within permissible, due to natural circumstances but the circular does not do away with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be interfered with by this Court. Reference is also made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2013 (296) ELT page 150. We may record that the learned Single Judge under the judgment and order referred to above has held as follows: "39. The aforesaid Rule is of a general nature whereas the circulars under which exemption is being claimed are very specific and are confined only to the wastage of excise goods namely aerated waters only and are not applicable to other goods and it refers to the wastage or loss only on account of breakage of bottles during handling and not for any other purpose. The import of Rule 21 is therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....936 PC 253 laid down the dictum that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated and followed the aforesaid dictum in a catena of cases and one of the recent judgment in Commissioner, Income Tax, Chandigarh v. Pearl Mechanical Engineering and Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Ors. reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the same itself. We have no hesitation to record th....