2018 (2) TMI 700 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Due to summer season, there is auto combustion in the open pit, in which molasses was stored and the same turned into black carbonized lumps as residue - Held that - the said Section talks about the recovery of the dues for which a Civil case is required to be filed by the Revenue. The issue in the present case is first to decide the liability of the person who has to pay the duty. The matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remission of duty on molasses rejected by Commissioner.
2. Withdrawal of show cause notice seeking confirmation of duty demand.
3. Liability for duty payment post-business transfer.

Issue 1: Remission of duty on molasses rejected by Commissioner
The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacture, faced auto combustion leading to residue formation in stored molasses. A remission application for 27823.15 qtls. of molasses was rejected by the Commissioner. The Tribunal later allowed remission for 15651 qtls., leading to a dispute resolved by the High Court. The Revenue appealed against the withdrawal of a show cause notice, with the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the withdrawal. The Tribunal, in a subsequent order, emphasized the finality of the remission rejection order and resolved the dispute accordingly.

Issue 2: Withdrawal of show cause notice seeking confirmation of duty demand
A show cause notice was issued seeking duty confirmation due to remission rejection, later withdrawn by a memorandum. However, the Revenue appealed against this withdrawal, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) setting it aside. The Tribunal, in its final order, emphasized the finality of the remission rejection order and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Issue 3: Liability for duty payment post-business transfer
Post selling the factory, the Revenue sought duty recovery from the new owner, contending that the duty liability transfers with the business. The appellant argued that the liability rested with the previous owner as per the sale deed. The Tribunal observed the need to determine the duty payer's liability first, referencing a relevant case law. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration based on the declaration of law by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration based on the Supreme Court's declaration of law. The judgment highlighted the complexities of duty remission, show cause notice withdrawal, and duty liability post-business transfer, providing clarity on legal principles and case law interpretations.