2012 (10) TMI 928 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Violation of Rules 4, 6, 8, 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Sugar lost during re-processing - Held that - Undisputedly, this is not the case of clandestine or illegal removal of the sugar without payment of duty. The case of the Department is that a quantity of 10821 Qtls of sugar manufactured by the appellant got damaged before it could be sold in the market as a result reprocessing was undertaken to make sugar marketable and in the course of reprocessing 750 Qtls of sugar was lost. If we go by these facts, it is obvious 750 Qtls of sugar regarding which the Revenue has claimed Excise duty was not removed/marketed by the respondent and it was lost during the manufacturing process to make it marketable. Therefore, there could be no incidence of levy of Excise duty on the sugar lost in the reprocessing of damaged sugar to make it marketable - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside duty demand and interest on reprocessed damaged sugar, imposition of penalty, application of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, liability for Excise duty on lost sugar during reprocessing.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the duty demand of Rs. 63,750/- with interest on reprocessed damaged sugar. The Department issued a demand notice to recover the duty along with interest due to the loss of sugar during reprocessing by the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand but did not impose a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal, stating that the lost sugar during reprocessing of damaged sugar could not be subjected to Excise duty as there was no illicit clearance of standard sugar. The respondent did not appear during the proceedings, leading to an ex parte decision.

The appellant argued that instead of reprocessing the damaged sugar resulting in a loss of sugar, the respondent could have applied for remission of Excise duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that the respondent should be liable to pay Excise duty for the lost sugar during reprocessing. However, upon considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that there was no illegal removal of sugar without duty payment. The sugar in question got damaged before being sold in the market, leading to reprocessing to make it marketable, during which 750 Qtls of sugar were lost. The Tribunal concluded that as the lost sugar was not removed or marketed by the respondent but was lost during the manufacturing process to make it marketable, there was no basis for levying Excise duty on the lost sugar during reprocessing. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the duty demand and interest on the lost sugar during the reprocessing of damaged sugar, stating that there was no incidence of Excise duty on the sugar lost in the manufacturing process to make it marketable.