2022 (8) TMI 872 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of central excise duty on semi-finished goods destroyed in the fire accident - goods destroyed because of fire - Commissioner observed that the documents did not reveal that the insurance claim filed by the appellant contained the element of excise of duty - Whether the party is eligible for remission of duty? - HELD THAT - Out of the claim for remission of Rs.40,97,341.00 for both finished and semi-finished goods, the party is entitled for remission of Rs.1,19,232.00 on finished goods. Once it is established that the party is entitled to remission of duty on the goods destroyed in fire accident caused due to reasons beyond the control of the party, the demand of duty on such goods is not sustainable. I, therefore, hold that the demand of duty of Rs.40,97,341.00 on the goods, both semi-finished and finished, which were destroyed completely due to fire accident caused by Short Circuit, is not sustainable. Whether CENVAT Credit reversed by the party was unwarranted? - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has observed that the duty reversed by the party amounting to Rs.41,01,620.00 was correct. Whether the party's settlement of insurance claim with respect to finished goods and semi-finished goods has any bearing on the case from revenue point? - HELD THAT - The Commissioner clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding this issue by going beyond the terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal as all that was required to be determined by the Commissioner on remand was to verify whether the element of excise duty involved in the goods destroyed by the fire accident was paid by insurance company or not. This issue has now been decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner holding that the appellant is not entitled to remission of duty on semi-finished goods, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appellant is entitled to remission of duty availed on semi-finished goods burnt/damaged to the extent of Rs.35,60,087/- - the order dated 08 April, 2009 passed by Commissioner to the extent it denies remission of duty on semi-finished goods to the extent of Rs.35,60,086/- burnt/damaged in fire is, accordingly, set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of remission of central excise duty on semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident.
2. Exceeding jurisdiction by the Commissioner in deciding specific issues beyond the terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Denial of remission of central excise duty on semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident:
The Tribunal had earlier remanded a specific issue to ascertain the amount settled by the insurance company after verifying documents. The Commissioner, on remand, considered all aspects covered by the earlier order challenged before the Tribunal. The Commissioner allowed remission of duty only on finished goods, dropped the demand for central excise duty on finished goods, confirmed the demand on CENVAT credit for inputs used in destroyed goods, and interest on CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that due to instructions, it reversed CENVAT credit and requested remission for finished and semi-finished goods destroyed in fire. The Commissioner denied remission, confirmed the central excise duty demand, and interest. The Tribunal held that the fire accident was unavoidable, and duty remission was justified. It also noted that duty liability cannot be imposed until goods are removed from the factory. The Tribunal found no provision for reversing CENVAT credit in case of a fire accident. The Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing remission of duty on semi-finished goods.

Issue 2: Exceeding jurisdiction by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by deciding issues beyond the remand order terms set by the Tribunal. The Commissioner framed three issues, including remission eligibility, correctness of reversed CENVAT credit, and settlement of insurance claims on finished and semi-finished goods. The Commissioner held that the party was entitled to remission on goods destroyed in the fire accident and that the reversed CENVAT credit was correct. The appellant challenged the denial of remission on semi-finished goods, which the Tribunal had decided in their favor earlier. The Commissioner's decision denying remission on semi-finished goods was set aside, granting remission on the burnt/damaged semi-finished goods. The remaining part of the Commissioner's order was not challenged, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the Tribunal's findings, and the ultimate decision by the Commissioner and subsequent Tribunal's ruling.