2007 (12) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Taking this into account the volatile nature of petroleum products, the CBEC prescribed the extent to which transit losses can be condoned - Transit losses condoned as they were within limits prescribed by CBEC - when the transit loss is condoned, the same does not amount to granting any exemption or granting any remission - It is not a case where the inputs have not been used for the intended purpose - no warrant or justification for seeking reversal of credit

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding condonation of transit losses and reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs.
- Interpretation of Board Circular No. 800/33/04-CX regarding remission of duty on lost goods.
- Whether transit loss condonation amounts to exemption or remission of duty.
- Application of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the case of transit losses.
- Justification for seeking reversal of duty credit on lost goods in transit.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order related to condonation of transit losses and the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs used in lost goods. The respondent was clearing petroleum products under bond to public sector warehouses, facing transit losses within prescribed limits. The original authority demanded duty reversal on inputs used in lost goods, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the Department's appeal.

The Department relied on Board Circular No. 800/33/04-CX, stating that credit recovery is necessary for goods where duty remission occurs due to damage. However, the appellant argued that condoning transit losses does not equate to exemption or remission. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the distinction between remission under Rule 21 and transit loss condonation under different Circulars and Rules.

The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that transit loss condonation for volatile petroleum products does not imply duty exemption or remission. The Board's prescribed limits consider such losses, indicating no basis for duty credit reversal on inputs used in lost goods. The judgment rejected the appeals, upholding the decision that no reversal of Cenvat credit was warranted for the transit losses incurred during transportation of petroleum products.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that transit loss condonation does not trigger duty credit reversal, aligning with the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling and dismissing the Department's appeal. The judgment clarified the distinction between remission under Rule 21 and condonable transit losses, emphasizing the specific provisions governing such scenarios under Central Excise Rules and Board Circulars.