2018 (9) TMI 1357 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - destruction of finished goods - Held that - This bench has already decided the issue arising out of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the appeal filed by the respondent. The appellant in the present case, i.e. department has not preferred any appeal on the same. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the destruction of the goods without payment of any duty permitting the remission of duty as contained in Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on finished goods and inputs
- Extension of re-export period
- Permission for destruction of goods without duty payment

Duty liability on finished goods and inputs:
The case involved the export and subsequent re-import of Tacrolimus Capsules by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed duty on the finished goods to be destroyed but set aside the duty on inputs contained in the finished goods. The Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for considering the duty liability under Section 22 of the Customs Act. Eventually, the Assistant Commissioner permitted the destruction of goods without payment of duty, in deference to the Tribunal's order. The department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that duty on final products and inputs should be paid. However, the Tribunal noted that since the department did not appeal against the Tribunal's order directing duty remission, the present appeal by the department was deemed infructuous.

Extension of re-export period:
The respondent had initially informed the department about the re-import of the goods due to rejection by the buyer. They obtained a procurement certificate and claimed exemption under a specific notification. The Commissioner had extended the period for re-export, and later, the respondent requested permission to destruct the goods due to the short shelf life. The Assistant Commissioner initially directed the respondent to pay duty on the finished goods and inputs to be destroyed. However, in compliance with the Tribunal's order, the Assistant Commissioner eventually allowed the destruction of goods without duty payment under Section 22 of the Customs Act.

Permission for destruction of goods without duty payment:
The central issue revolved around whether duty should be paid on the finished goods and inputs sought to be destroyed. The Tribunal observed that the matter had already been decided in a previous appeal filed by the respondent, where the duty remission was permitted by the Assistant Commissioner as directed by the Tribunal. Since the department did not appeal against this order, the Tribunal found no grounds for the department's present appeal and dismissed it accordingly.