2008 (5) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 21 of CE Rules for remission of duty in case of goods destroyed in fire accident; Requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act for hearing the appeal.

Interpretation of Rule 21 for remission of duty:
The appellant, operating under the 100% EOU Scheme, faced a fire accident resulting in the destruction of imported and indigenously procured equipment in their STP Unit. The appellant sought remission of duty u/s Rule 21, citing a previous bench judgment. The learned SDR argued that Rule 21 applies only to manufacturers of excisable goods, not buyers like the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the SDR, directing the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within three months to proceed with the appeal, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

Requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 15,86,467/- for the appeal hearing as mandated by Section 35F of the Act. The appellant's failure to provide required details to the department within six months led to confirmed demands. The learned consultant sought a full waiver based on the bench judgment, while the learned SDR insisted on pre-depositing the amounts. The Tribunal directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement to avoid dismissal of the appeal, with a deadline set for compliance.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the specific provisions of Rule 21 for remission of duty in cases of goods destroyed due to unforeseen circumstances like fire accidents, and the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F for hearing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.