2019 (6) TMI 558 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - demand of duty on the goods lost in fire - HELD THAT - In the last round of litigation before Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was remanded by him to the Original Authority for denovo decision, after the disposal of the remission application by the Jurisdictional Collector. Even though the original authority in his order dated 19.01.2007, has referred to a communication from the Commissioner dated 07.12.2006, rejecting the application for remission, the appellant has claimed that they have received no such order from the Commissioner. There is no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Jurisdictional Commissioner once again to decide the question of demand of duty on goods destroyed in fire, after disposing of the application for remission of duty filed by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on goods lost in fire, remission application, jurisdiction of Commissioner, legal arguments presented by both parties.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, regarding the demand of duty on goods lost in a fire incident at the appellant's Jute factory. The appellant argued that the duty demand should not be payable as the goods were destroyed in the fire and were entitled to remission. The case involved a series of events post the fire incident, including notifications to authorities, submission of reports, and a remission application. The appellant contended that the demand should only be considered after the remission application was disposed of, citing relevant case laws to support their argument.

During the proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner referred to a communication claiming the rejection of the remission application by the Commissioner. However, the appellant stated they had not received any such communication. The Legal Advocate representing the appellant relied on case laws emphasizing that the remission application should be decided before the duty demand. The Departmental Representative justified the impugned order, stating the remission application had been rejected. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal concluded that the application for remission should be decided before addressing the duty demand issue. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner to make a decision on the duty demand after disposing of the remission application. The Commissioner was directed to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case during the denovo proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further consideration by the Commissioner.