2008 (6) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Demands relate to goods cleared under bond for export which were not exported. The impugned goods had been damaged in road accidents - Rule 21 of CER, 2002 which provides for remission of goods destroyed in accidents is subject to the condition that the damage is suffered by the excisable goods before their removal from the factory. In the instant case, the goods have been damaged after they were cleared for export and out side the factory remission of duty is not allowable in such case

Summary

Issues: Appeal against sustained demands on goods cleared for export but damaged in accidents outside the factory. Interpretation of remission of duty provisions under Central Excise Rules, 2002. Applicability of enabling provisions for remission of duty on damaged goods not exported.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal sustaining demands on goods cleared for export but damaged in accidents outside the factory. The demands related to goods not exported after being damaged in road accidents. The Commissioner (A) upheld the demands following the Tribunal's decision in Hind Nippon Rural Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mangalore, which held that duty must be paid on goods cleared for export but destroyed before export.

2. The appellant argued that the damaged goods were brought back inside the factory and inspected, meeting requirements from the C.B.E.C. manual. The appellant claimed entitlement to remission of duty on the impugned goods under Chapter VII of the manual. However, the SDR contended that the only provision for remission applied to goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents before removal from the factory, not for goods damaged outside the factory after clearance for export.

3. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allow for remission of duty on goods destroyed in accidents before removal from the factory. As the damaged goods were cleared for export and then damaged outside the factory, there were no provisions enabling authorities to remit duty on such goods. Citing precedents like Hind Nippon Rural Industries (P) Ltd. case and Siraj Sons case, the Tribunal concluded that duty liability remains even if goods cleared for export are destroyed before export, dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues of the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's interpretation of relevant provisions and precedents, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.