2014 (6) TMI 24 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - whether the appellant is entitled to the remission of duty in terms of the provision of Rule 21 of the Central Excise rules, in respect of the semi-finished goods/work in process, destroyed in fire accident - Held that - Appellant is not liable to pay duty on the semi-finished goods. As such, there is no requirement to file the remission application. No duty can be confirmed against them in respect of the said semi-finished goods. In fact, I find that vide impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not confirmed any duty against the assessee and has simplicitor rejected the remission application, which is not going to adversely effect the appellants - Accordingly, without going into the technical issue is as to whether the remission is required in semi-finished goods are not, appellant is not liable to pay any duty, the rejection or acceptance of the remission application is ineffective - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the appellant is entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules for semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Remission of Duty: The main issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to remission of duty for the semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident. The Commissioner denied the remission application stating that Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules is applicable only to finished excisable goods and not to semi-finished or work in process goods. However, it is noted that there is no dispute regarding the fire accident and destruction of the semi-finished goods. The Tribunal's decision in Urmi Chemicals Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III and Lakshmi Precision Tools Ltd. cases supports the position that duty liability does not arise for semi-finished goods that cannot be cleared or are in process.

2. Appellant's Duty Liability: It is established that the appellant is not liable to pay duty on the semi-finished goods destroyed in the fire accident. The Commissioner did not confirm any duty against the appellant and simply rejected the remission application. As the semi-finished goods were not fully manufactured and no duty liability exists, the rejection of the remission application does not adversely affect the appellant. Therefore, the question of whether remission is required for semi-finished goods becomes irrelevant in this case.

3. Conclusion: Considering that the appellant is not obligated to pay any duty on the destroyed semi-finished goods, the acceptance or rejection of the remission application is inconsequential. The appeal is disposed of based on the appellant's non-liability to pay duty on the semi-finished goods. The judgment clarifies the application of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules in cases involving destruction of goods in process and affirms the appellant's position regarding duty remission for semi-finished goods.