9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 823 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Remission of duty - Held that - consequential demand of duty, against the remission application was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal by Final Order dtd 27.6.2008 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. We find that the demand of duty on the goods destroyed by fire on 22.11.2003 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of application for remission of duty has no consequence as the demand of duty thereon, has already been set aside. - impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Demand of duty on goods destroyed in fire. 3. Appeal against the rejection of remission application. Analysis: Issue 1: Remission of duty under Rule 21 The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Dyes and Dyes Intermediaries, faced a fire accident at their factory. They applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Asstt. Commissioner, in a communication dated 28.3.2007, informed that the goods were not manufactured as final products and were not entered in the RG-1 register. Due to the unknown cause of the fire, the case was deemed unfit for remission. The appellants appealed against this decision. Issue 2: Demand of duty on goods destroyed in fire The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice proposing a demand of duty on the goods destroyed in the fire. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand along with interest. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected their appeal in the Final Order dated 27.6.2008. Issue 3: Appeal against rejection of remission application Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the demand of duty on the goods destroyed in the fire had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of the remission application had no consequence as the duty demand had already been nullified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
