9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - claim of appellant is that the goods though cleared for export by customs authorities at ICD, the same could not have been exported due to accident - Held that - It is the case of the appellant that the issue is res integra as the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I 2014 (11) TMI 579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD was considering the same issue and held that remission is allowed on the goods which were cleared for export but could not be exported due to accident - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Duty liability on goods cleared for export but not exported due to accident. 2. Applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remission of duties. 3. Interpretation of "Place of Removal" in the context of goods cleared for export under Bond. 4. Legal precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in similar cases. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned duty liability on goods cleared for export but not exported due to an accident. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing granite products, faced duty liability as per Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued for remission of duties under Rule 21 due to the goods being damaged before export. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the appellant's contention, but the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the Revenue. 2. The appellant contended that a Larger Bench decision in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd. established the allowance of remission for goods cleared for export but not exported due to accidents. The Tribunal examined the issue and reproduced the relevant findings of the Larger Bench, emphasizing the ownership and duty liability extension up to the load port for goods cleared under ARE-1 for export under Bond. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the concept of "Place of Removal" under Section 4(3)(C)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the applicability of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Referring to the sale completion at the load port for export goods, the Tribunal concluded that if such goods are destroyed before export, the duty liability remains with the manufacturer, allowing for remission under exceptional circumstances. 4. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and upheld the view that the port of shipment constitutes the "place of Removal" for export cases. The Tribunal aligned with previous judgments and held that goods cleared for export under Bond, destroyed before export, should be treated as destroyed before removal, making the appellant eligible for remission of duty. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the adjudicating authority based on the legal precedent established by the Larger Bench regarding the remission of duties for goods damaged before export.
|
