2017 (11) TMI 651 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - reversal of credit - Held that - the Commissioner has relied upon the surveyor s report and the insurance claim made with the insurance company M/s.Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ld., wherein the insurance company has settled the total claim of Rs..15,51,91,320/- against the claim of the appellant for remission of duty on the destroyed goods. Evidence of surveyor s report and the insurance company is conclusive, the department has no iota of evidence to rebut the claim of the respondent or to rebut the sanction of the insurance claim by the insurance company - application for remission of duty allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original for remission of duty due to destruction of goods in floods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner allowing the remission application for duty amounting to ?65,07,746. The respondent's goods were destroyed in floods, leading to the remission claim. The Revenue contended that the remission was wrongly allowed by the Commissioner. The appellant's representative highlighted the duty paid/reversed on various categories of goods destroyed, along with interest paid for late payment. The Commissioner, after examining the submissions and surveyor's report, allowed the remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stating that it was a genuine case. The Commissioner relied on the surveyor's report and the insurance claim settlement of ?15,51,91,320 by the insurance company, which covered the loss of excisable goods. The Assistant Commissioner also confirmed the loss and duty debited by the party. The Commissioner concluded that no duty or penalty should be imposed due to the remission granted.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the conclusive evidence provided by the surveyor's report and the insurance claim settlement. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue to challenge the remission claim or the insurance settlement. The grounds raised by the Revenue were deemed superfluous, lacking support from the show-cause notice or adjudication order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, affirming the remission of duty on the destroyed goods. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the case was disposed of accordingly.