2017 (4) TMI 935 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - rejection on the ground that the appeal against the rejection of remission of duty is pending before the CESTAT, Bangalore and also that the recovery is stayed by the Tribunal - Held that - The litigation in respect of the rejection of remission of duty has attained finality. The said judgment passed by the Tribunal is reported in Everest Organics Ltd., (respondent herein) Vs CCE, CUS and ST, Hyderabad-I 2014 (1) TMI 1712 - CESTAT BANGALORE where the Tribunal upheld the rejection of request for remission of duty - demand upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against setting aside duty, interest, and penalties imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) due to fire accident in factory leading to loss of goods.

Analysis:
The department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalties imposed after a fire accident in the factory of the respondents, who are manufacturers of bulk drugs and intermediaries availing CENVAT Credit. The original authority rejected the request for remission of duty, which was upheld by subsequent authorities. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty on goods destroyed in the fire accident, along with interest and recovery of CENVAT Credit taken on inputs. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under Central Excise Rules and CENVAT Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, interest, and penalties, citing the pending appeal against the rejection of remission of duty before the Tribunal. The department argued that the issue of remission eligibility had attained finality and the demand should have been confirmed.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand solely based on the pending appeal against the rejection of remission of duty before the Tribunal, where recovery was stayed. Referring to a previous Tribunal judgment upholding the rejection of remission due to negligence on the part of the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the rejection of the application for remission was justified. The Tribunal found negligence both by the department and the fire department, with police prosecuting individuals involved in the accident. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of remission, a decision also supported by the Jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties was overturned, allowing the department's appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of remission of duty due to negligence on the part of the respondents, a decision supported by the Jurisdictional High Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties was overturned, emphasizing the finality of the remission issue and the negligence involved in the fire accident, leading to the allowance of the department's appeal.