2015 (11) TMI 766 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Duty demand - Held that - Consequent to the remission application, the jurisdictional Central Excise officer raised the demand of duty on the goods destroyed in the fire. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the demand of duty following the Tribunal order. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Tribunal allowed the remission application which is further upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2015 (10) TMI 1295 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . So, the demand of duty can not survive. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remission of duty application under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Challenge by Revenue against remission order.
3. Demand of duty raised post remission application.
4. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:
1. The Respondents were involved in manufacturing excisable goods under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A fire incident led to the destruction of goods in their factory. Subsequently, the Respondent applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal approved the remission application, a decision challenged by the Revenue in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.

2. The Hon'ble High Court, in Tax appeal No. 492 of 2008, ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Following this judgment, the jurisdictional Central Excise officer demanded duty on the destroyed goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this demand in alignment with the Tribunal's decision. The current appeal is against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

3. Considering the Tribunal's approval of the remission application, upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the demand for duty on the destroyed goods becomes untenable. The Judge found no justification to intervene in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The legal proceedings concluded with the pronouncement of the order in court.