2017 (9) TMI 1182 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - waste - wastage/loss of molasses - Rule 21 Central Excise Rules, 2002 - principles of natural justice - Held that - the Show Cause Notice have been issued under the misconception i.e. removal of excisable goods without payment of duty, whereas in fact the appellant had marked in the return, as wastage. As the OIO was passed ex-parte, the appellant did not have opportunity to lead evidence in order to satisfy the storage/natural/pilferage loss. The loss as claimed by the appellant is stated to be less than 2% of the total quantity of molasses handled by them during the said sugar season. Taking notice of the facts and the circulars of the CBEC as well as the State Authorities under the relevant state laws, wherein a shortage up to 2% in the case of molasses is considered normal, it is fit and proper to allow this appeal by way of remand to the learned Commissioner to re-examine the matter of loss - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Clearance of molasses without payment of duty.
2. Violation of natural justice in adjudication process.
3. Remission of duty on storage loss of molasses without filing an application.
4. Interpretation of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Issue 1 - Clearance of molasses without payment of duty:
The appellants, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, faced a demand for Central Excise duty due to the alleged clearance of molasses without payment. The Revenue contended that the appellants cleared molasses without duty payment based on discrepancies in their returns. The adjudication process was criticized for lack of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted. The appellants argued that they informed the Revenue about molasses loss and applied for remission, but the application was not acknowledged. The Commissioner rejected the appeal, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the duty demand and penalty due to lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims.

Issue 2 - Violation of natural justice in adjudication process:
The appellants raised concerns about the violation of natural justice in the adjudication process, highlighting the lack of personal hearing and the pending remission application. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the records regarding the remission application and ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the need for proper evidence and adherence to procedural fairness in such cases.

Issue 3 - Remission of duty on storage loss of molasses without filing an application:
The Tribunal considered the issue of remission of duty on storage loss of molasses without a filed application. The High Court emphasized the necessity of following Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for claiming remission. It ruled that even if the loss was within permissible limits, an application for remission was mandatory. The High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing a fresh decision based on proper adherence to statutory provisions.

Issue 4 - Interpretation of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows remission of duty on goods lost by natural causes or accidents. It found that the Show Cause Notice was issued under a misconception, and the appellant's loss claim was within the normal limit. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner for re-examination of the loss issue, directing the appellant to file a representation under Rule 21 and provide evidence to support their claim within a specified period.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to duty payment, natural justice, remission applications, and rule interpretations, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and evidence in excise duty matters.