2019 (7) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue of the said show cause notice, the writ applicant has been called upon to show cause as to why - (i) The Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,70,17,147/( AnnexureA) and Cenvat credit of Rs. 13,65,766/( AnnexureB) should not be demanded under Section11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) The Cenvat Credit of Rs. 13,65,766/which was reversed by the assessee vide entry No.182 dated 21.01.2006, should not be appropriated. (iii) The interest at appropriate rate on Central Excise duty and Cenvat Credit availed should not be recovered from them under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Mr. Premal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the writapplicant invited our attention to the remission app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said goods may kindly be granted. 4. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid remission application filed by the writapplicant, came to be rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 06/06/2017. The operative part of the order passed by the Commissioner reads thus:Page ORDER I reject the application dated 23.01.2006 and reapplication dated 22.05.2015 made by the assessee, M/s. Dhariwal Industries Pvt. Ltd., N.H. No.8, At. Fazalpur, Post. Sankarda, Dist. Vadodara, to claim remission of duty involved in goods amounting to Rs. 2,70,17,147/. (MALLIKA MAHAJAN) Commissioner Date:06.06.2017. 5. It is further pointed out that the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the remission applicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....packed and sold it is completely on the assessee to decide after analyzing the practicability, feasibility and viability. If the assessee decides that the goods are not marketable and claims for destruction of the same and apply for remission of duty, the department had no option except to allow the remission of duty. It is important to note that in the process of destruction of goods, it is not the department alone forgoing excise duty of Rs. 2,70,17,147/but the appellant is also losing the value of such goods which is much more than the duty of excise. Therefore, for claiming the destruction of the goods and remission of duty thereon, the malafide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has gravely erre....