2015 (10) TMI 1675 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Destruction of expired goods - Held that - Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the letter dated 17.02.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs cannot be treated as an appealable order. He submits that in both the cases the duty involved is more than ₹ 5 lakh and therefore, Assistant Commissioner is not a competent authority to decide on the remission of duty, if any. On a query from the Bench, both the parties agree that the letter dated 17.02.2014 is not maintainable and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remission of duty for 100% EOU units.
2. Appealability of the Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 17.02.2014.
3. Competency of the Assistant Commissioner to decide on remission of duty exceeding Rs. 5 lakh.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolved around the application of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remission of duty for units that are 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU). The Advocate for the assessee argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously directed to follow Rule 21, stating that it would not apply to 100% EOU units. This contention was crucial in determining the duty remission process for the units.

2. Another significant issue was the appealability of the Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 17.02.2014. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue contended that this letter could not be considered an appealable order. It was highlighted that the duty involved in both cases exceeded Rs. 5 lakh, making the Assistant Commissioner not competent to decide on the remission of duty, if required. Both parties agreed that the letter was not maintainable, impacting the validity of the impugned order.

3. The competency of the Assistant Commissioner to decide on the remission of duty exceeding Rs. 5 lakh was a critical aspect of the judgment. It was established that the Assistant Commissioner was not the appropriate authority to make decisions on duty remission in cases where the duty amount exceeded the specified threshold. This understanding influenced the decision to set aside the impugned orders and direct the Revenue to take proper steps in accordance with the law, allowing the assessee to present their case before the competent authority as per legal provisions.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned orders, emphasizing the need for proper compliance with legal procedures and competent authority involvement in decisions regarding duty remission for 100% EOU units. The appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessees were disposed of based on the considerations discussed during the proceedings.