2010 (12) TMI 1024 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - assessee seeking the remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. was rejected by Asstt. Commissioner has rejected the remission of duty treating the loss due to reprocessing of sugar - Held that - As there was a fire in the factory and fire loss has occurred. Department has not denied the incident of fire in factory. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the remission of duty treating it as a fire loss on the basis of various documentary evidences cited by him in his order. Government finds that fire loss being a natural loss is very well covered under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. no infirmity in the order-in-appeal, Revision application is rejected being devoid of merit.

Issues Involved:
1. Remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Applicability of case laws cited by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Nature and cause of sugar loss (fire incident vs. reprocessing loss).
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for remission of duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Remission of Duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The respondent, a manufacturer of excisable goods, experienced a fire in their sugar godown, resulting in the loss of 1097.46 quintals of sugar. The respondent applied for remission of central excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 21 allows remission of duty if goods are lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents before removal. The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the remission claim, stating that the loss occurred due to reprocessing, not directly due to the fire. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the remission, considering the fire as the primary cause of the loss.

2. Applicability of Case Laws Cited by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the case law of M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, where remission was granted for sugar lost due to fire. The applicant argued that this case was not directly applicable as the facts differed, particularly since the loss in the present case was due to reprocessing. The Commissioner (Appeals) also cited other cases like Oswal Sugars Ltd., Plastikkos Packaging, and Sarjoo Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., which supported remission claims for goods lost due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents.

3. Nature and Cause of Sugar Loss:
The respondent argued that the loss of 1097.46 quintals of sugar was due to the fire and subsequent reprocessing of damaged sugar. The fire caused an initial loss of 818.55 quintals, and reprocessing resulted in an additional loss of 278.91 quintals. The applicant contended that the loss was primarily due to reprocessing, which is not covered under Rule 21. However, the respondent provided evidence, including a survey report from the insurer, indicating that the fire was accidental and the reprocessing was a necessary consequence.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Remission of Duty:
The respondent followed the prescribed procedure for remission under Rule 21, including obtaining permission for reprocessing from the Superintendent of Central Excise and providing detailed documentation of the incident and losses. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent met the requirements, and the remission claim was justified. The Government upheld this view, noting that the fire incident was a natural cause of loss, fitting within the provisions of Rule 21.

Conclusion:
The Government reviewed the submissions and records, confirming the fire incident and the subsequent reprocessing loss. It was determined that the remission of duty was permissible under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the loss was due to a natural cause (fire). The appeal by the Assistant Commissioner was rejected, and the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the remission claim was upheld. The revision application was dismissed as devoid of merit.

← Previous Next →