2007 (2) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 31-7-2003 ordered for destruction of the said goods as the goods were smelling bad and not fit for human consumption. As such the appellant by its letter dated 6-8-2003 requested the Commissioner of Central Excise for remission of duty of Rs. 5,06,688/- on stock of Pan Parag Gold Gutkha 203 cases. By order dated 2-11-2004, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application dated 6-8-2003 for remission of Central Excise Duty. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner accepted that the goods become unfit for marketing or for consumption and therefore, the appellant is entitled for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by accident or unfit for human consumption or for marketing at any time before removal. Thus, Rule 21 placed limitation to the satisfaction of Commissioner for granting permission for remission of duty. In this case, the ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class held that the seized goods are unfit for human consumption and ordered that the seized goods be destroyed. It is revealed from the impugned order that the Commissioner is also satisfied that the goods are unfit for consumption or for marketing. But he denied the remission of duty on the ground that the appellant failed to make their case that the goods are unfit for consumpti....