2006 (11) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules regarding remission of duty for destroyed goods and the authority empowered to grant such remission.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a case where a show cause notice was issued for demanding duty on excisable goods. The respondents sought remission of duty as inputs and finished goods were destroyed due to fire, but the proceedings were dropped. The main contention was whether the respondents were entitled to remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules and the authority empowered to grant such remission.

In the case, the respondents requested remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, due to the destruction of inputs and finished goods by fire. The Tribunal found that the rule empowers only the Commissioner of Central Excise to grant such remission. Additionally, remission of duty for goods not issued for processing is not available, as established in the case of M/s. Golden Polymex (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Patna. Rule 49 allows the proper officer to not demand duty on goods claimed as unfit for consumption, subject to conditions set by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's contention that only the Commissioner is authorized to grant remission and remission is applicable only for inputs not issued for processing, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.