9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 561 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Fire accident - denial on the ground that the said raw material were received by the appellant without payment of duty against CT-3 certificate and the same has not been utilized in the manufacture of final product, which was required to be exported and as such, the condition of N/N. 1/95-C.E, dt. 4-1-95 is not satisfied - Held that - decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. 2000 (10) TMI 118 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI , followed, wherein rejection for remission of duty in respect of duty free procured raw material by a 100% EOU by the lower authorities on the identical ground was not upheld - there is no dispute about the destruction of the goods in fire and by adopting the ratio of the above decisions, remission of duty has to be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Remission of duty in respect of destroyed raw material due to post-Godhra Carnage Development. Analysis: The dispute in the case pertains to the remission of duty concerning raw material destroyed in a factory due to post-Godhra Carnage Development. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the remission application, stating that the raw material was received without payment of duty against a CT-3 certificate and was not utilized in manufacturing the final product for export, thus not meeting the conditions of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The Commissioner observed that the appellant failed to fulfill the export obligation, rendering them liable for duty payment and interest. The Commissioner also highlighted the bond executed by the appellant, emphasizing their responsibility for export obligations. The decision relied on precedents and emphasized the liability of the appellants for duty payment on goods not exported, even though the goods were destroyed due to unavoidable circumstances. Regarding the issue, the Tribunal referred to the case of M/s. Sami Lab Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, where it was established that goods lost in a fire accident were considered 'work in progress,' not falling under the Explanation to Rule 6. The Tribunal emphasized the provisions for remission of duty in cases of goods lost due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents. It was noted that the duty on indigenously procured raw materials destroyed in unavoidable accidents should not be demanded, as it was not used for the intended purpose. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the destruction of goods as an Act of God and rejecting the duty demand. Furthermore, the Tribunal cited the case of M/s. Next Fashion Creators (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, where imported duty-free materials destroyed in fire were entitled to remission of duty. The Tribunal highlighted the applicability of Section 23 of the Customs Act to warehouse goods for remission of duty. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in CCE, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Alp Chemical Ltd., where the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, emphasizing the justification for remission in cases of destroyed goods not available for manufacture or consumption. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of statutory compliance should not be placed on the appellant when goods are destroyed due to unavoidable accidents. It was noted that duty should not be demanded for goods that were destroyed and not available for use. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the principles of remission of duty in cases of destroyed goods due to unavoidable accidents, emphasizing the need for fairness and proper remedy in such situations. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, emphasizing that duty should not be demanded when goods are destroyed and not available for use, considering it a just and fair solution.
|
