2016 (6) TMI 1011 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - destruction of indigenous / imported raw material due to fire - Held that - Commissioner has rejected the appellant s remission application by simpliciter observing that the remission of duty is subject to satisfaction of Commissioner. However, no reasons stands given by the adjudicating as to why he was not satisfied about the factum of fire and the consequent destruction of the final products. Various evidences on record clearly lead one to believe that the fire had admittedly occurred, for which FIR was launched and fire brigade were summoned and insurance claim was made. Next ground adopted by the Commissioner for rejection of the remission is that assessee had not taken sufficient measures to protect the portion of the value of the goods which represent duty element while the goods were in his possession. Undisputedly the value of the goods was insured by the appellant and there is no requirement or legal provision for insuring the duty element. If the duty element is also required to be insured and reimbursed by the insurance company, then there is no need for the assessee to ask for remission of duty in which case the provision of remission of duty would become redundant. Regarding rejection of remission for loss of imported inputs - import of the inputs in terms of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, cannot be made the ground for denying the remission of duty in case of subsequent destruction of the inputs. - Remission allowed - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Remission of duty on destroyed raw materials and final products due to fire in appellant's factory.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing, faced a fire incident resulting in the destruction of imported and indigenous raw materials and final products. The appellant notified the central excise authority, filed an FIR, and claimed insurance for the loss. The appellant applied for remission of duty amounting to ?28,25,241, which included duty on final goods, indigenous, and imported raw materials. The Commissioner rejected the remission application, leading to appeals. The Commissioner's rejection was based on lack of satisfaction about the fire incident and failure to protect the duty element of goods. However, the Tribunal found various evidence confirming the fire incident and criticized the Commissioner for not providing valid reasons for rejection. The Tribunal also noted that insuring the duty element is not a legal requirement, and the duty remission provision would become redundant if duty elements were to be insured. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting duty remission in cases of destruction of inputs procured duty-free under specific notifications. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's objections were unfounded, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing both appeals with consequential relief, if any.