2014 (2) TMI 1007 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of remission of duty - destruction of goods - Appellant s both factories were flooded by water due to heavy rains and flood in Daman Ganga River in August, 2004 - Application was unanswered by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise or the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the appellant s factory - Held that - the appellant having informed the authorities about the quality of the goods which needs to be destroyed, as being unfit for human consumption, it was for the lower authorities to respond to such a letter received from the appellant and also the remission application. - The lower authorities have not even bothered to call for any details or give any response to the appellant on the remission application. - The appellant had taken all the possible actions from his side to keep the departmeat informed about the requirement of remission of the duty and also of the destruction of the goods. The rejection of the remission applications by the adjudicating authority in these cases is not in consonance with the law and are unsustainable. - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2008 (4) TMI 636 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original for remission of duty on goods destroyed due to flood damage.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Factual Background:
The appellant's factories were flooded in 2004, resulting in damage to finished goods. The appellant sought remission of duty on goods unfit for human consumption due to fungus contamination. Despite multiple reminders and notifications to the authorities, the appellant received no response and eventually destroyed the goods.

2. Legal Submissions:
The appellant's counsel cited relevant case laws, including a judgment from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, to support the claim for remission based on timely notifications and actions taken by the appellant.

3. Adjudication:
The Tribunal noted the diligent efforts of the appellant in informing the authorities about the goods' condition and the planned destruction. The destruction was certified by the Assistant Drug Control Licensing Authority, confirming the goods' unsuitability for human consumption.

4. Critical Analysis:
The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not responding to the appellant's notifications and remission application. Emphasis was placed on the certificate issued by the Foods & Drug Authorities, indicating the goods' unsuitability for consumption.

5. Precedent and Findings:
The Tribunal referenced a judgment from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and a previous case involving expired medicines to highlight the importance of timely action and communication between the appellant and the authorities regarding the destruction of goods.

6. Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the remission applications by the adjudicating authority was unjust and unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of due consideration for certificates issued by relevant authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the necessity of timely responses from authorities in cases of goods destruction due to unforeseen circumstances, emphasizing the duty of lower authorities to consider all relevant evidence and certifications provided by the appellant.