TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Dated 01.03.2002. The condition for availing the concession was that the imported goods should be for use in, or supply to, a unit for manufacturing paper or paper board. They accordingly executed a bond on the said terms before clearing the goods to their factory. They later submitted a certificate stating that the waste paper was lost in a fire on 19.04.2012 and had not been used as stipulated. As a result, the department felt that the appellant was ineligible for the concession. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority demanded differential duty of Rs.26,99,941/- plus applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e demanded. He prayed that the order be set aside. 3.2 The Ld. AR Shri Anoop Singh has taken us through the impugned order. He stated that the appellant not only did not use the goods in the manufacture of paper or paperboard as required by the notification due to the alleged loss of goods due to fire but also claimed insurance including the taxes paid on goods with an intention to get double benefit and hence the appeal may be rejected. He reiterated the other points given in the OIO and the impugned order. 4. We find that a similar issue including the issue raised by the Ld. AR in his submission has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench speaking through one of us, (Member (T), M. Ajit Kumar) vide Final Order No. 41292/2024 dated 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used in such unit, that the said goods have been so used. 5. The issues raised in the proceedings below are that the appellant; i) did not intimate the department regarding the loss of the impugned goods due to fire, and; ii) claimed insurance including the taxes paid on goods with an intention to get double benefit with an intention to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner Appeals also felt these actions; iii) proved that the impugned goods were not used in the manufacture of the kraft paper, violating the conditions of the undertaking given. 6. We find that as per the correspondence placed before us and not refuted by revenue, the appellant had intimated the department of the loss of the impugned goods both by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als i.e. the impugned goods were not used in the manufacture of the kraft paper, violating the conditions of the undertaking given. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. [1987 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT / 2004 (178) E.L.T. 13 (SC)], has examined the words 'for use' as appearing in an exemption Notification and held it to mean 'intended for use'. The relevant portion is extracted below; "10. . . . On a plain reading of the relevant clause it is clear that the expression "for use" must mean "intended for use". If the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods sold as were actually used by the undertaking in the generation and distribution of elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the final product and hence were not eligible for remission, would make Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules and Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 redundant. A provision of an Act or Rule cannot be read in a manner to render its purpose otiose. Hence on this ground too, the impugned order fails. 10. In Vamsadhara Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Commr. Of Cus., Visakhapatnam [2009 (247) E.L.T 751 (Tri. Bang.)] the Tribunal examined a similar matter and held as under; 6. We have gone through the records of the case. The goods were imported duty free claiming benefit of Notification No. 17/2001, dt. 17-3-2001. The undisputed fact is that in respect of quantity of 50.571 MTs, no end-use certificate could be produced as the goods were destroyed due to....