TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court while admitting the Tax Appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law :- "(A) Whether the Final Order passed by the CESTAT can be said to be an order passed in accordance with law wherein the Tribunal has not taken proper cognizance of the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding remission of duty and the facts involved in the issue? (B) Whether the conclusion arrived at by the CESTAT that impugned goods were covered under the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not restrain the Commissioner from deciding the matter independently on merit in remand proceedings?" 2. Present Tax Appeal is preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd on the advice of local officers, this amount has been reversed under Entry No. 182 dated 21.01.2006 from the Cenvat account. 5. The application filed by the respondent seeking remission was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax vide order dated 06.06.2017. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an Appeal before the Tribunal, and by the order dated 27.11.2018, the Appeal of the petitioner was allowed, which is subject matter of challenge in the present Tax Appeal. Submissions of the petitioner:- 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. C.B. Gupta appearing for the appellant authority has submitted that the Tribunal has fell in error in interpreting Rule 21 of the Rules, 2002 since the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tobacco, gutkha in the name of Manikchand brand, and by an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 16.03.2004 granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar in Madhya Pradesh, they were restrained from using the trademark Manikchand. The appellant Department has not disputed that after the interim order, the respondent stopped using the brand name Manikchand, and since the litigation was pending, they switched over to new brand RMD and continued manufacturing activities by using the new brand. In view of the stay order granted by the District Court, a huge stock of goods bearing brand name Manikchand which was entered in daily stock remained unused, and they could not deal with the same and sell and dispose of these goods. As on filing of the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant was not in a position to sale in the market due to order of the District Judge, Mandaleshwar Court, on the issue of brand name. In this position, it was beyond the control of the appellant to market the said goods. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on various counts which are absolutely irrelevant. As regards the reference made to a case of infringement of Intellectual Property Right, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction at all for drawing inference and holding that the appellant had mala fide intention. The Id. Commissioner on his own viewed that the goods packed in "Manikchand" brand should have been repacked in "RMD" brand and sold. This is also beyond the jurisdiction of the Id. Commissioner for. the reason that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se that the goods were unfit for marketing and squarely cover under the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002." 10. We completely agree with the foregoing observations of the Tribunal. In fact, no attempts are made by the appellant Department to verify the actual status of goods at the time when the respondent started manufacturing the goods and packing them in name of RMD brand. In order to establish their case, the appellant Department ought to have undertaken a fact-finding exercise to verify the goods which were lying when the respondent had filed an application seeking remission. As in the application, the respondent has specifically asserted that after the adinterim injunction was granted by the District Court, Mandle....