9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 876 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Place of removal - Held that - The Appellant s appeal regarding remission of duty on certain goods destroyed during the period from the place of removal to the place of export. Larger Bench in the case of the Appellant decided the issue in favour of the Appellant and accordingly Appeal No.E/371/2009 of the Appellant was allowed. Once remission of duty for the same goods is allowed, the case of confirming the demand on the same goods is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Remission of duty on finished goods destroyed before export. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Appellant challenging the order that upheld a demand of Rs. 5,87,987.00 against them for finished goods destroyed before export. The Appellant's representative argued that a similar issue regarding remission of duty was referred to the Larger Bench in a previous case of the same Appellant. The Larger Bench had ruled in favor of the Appellant in that case. The representative highlighted that the demand in the present case was confirmed solely based on the reference to the Larger Bench. It was contended that once remission of duty on the destroyed goods had been decided in favor of the Appellant, the confirmation of the demand for the same goods should not stand. Additionally, it was mentioned that the amount in question was paid under protest from the CENVAT Credit account and duly intimated to the Central Excise officers. Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was noted that the issue revolved around the remission of duty on goods destroyed during the transit from the place of removal to the place of export. The decision of the Larger Bench in favor of the Appellant in a previous case was cited as precedent. It was concluded that once remission of duty for the same goods had been allowed, confirming the demand on those goods was unjustified. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed, overturning the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and providing any consequential relief deemed necessary. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. H.K. Thakur.
|
