2013 (8) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Section 23 of the Customs Act Fire Accident in the in the factory and the applicant - Applicants procured the raw material as well as the capital goods indigenously as also imported, without payment of duty Held that - Revenue is not disputing the incident of fire Also, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant made a statement that the duties in respect of Excise and Customs regarding which remission claim are not part of their insurance claim - Application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues is allowed and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, remission of Central Excise and Customs duty due to fire incident, applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules and Section 23 of Customs Act, dispute over precautionary measures taken to prevent fire incident.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of a substantial amount along with interest and penalty due to a fire incident in the factory. The applicants, being a 100% EOU, procured raw materials and capital goods both domestically and through imports without duty payment. Following the fire incident, they applied for remission of Central Excise and Customs duty for the destroyed goods. The Commissioner declined remission citing lack of sufficient precautionary measures taken by the applicants to prevent the fire.

The contention of the applicant was based on Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 23 of Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the fire was a natural cause entitling them to duty remission for the destroyed goods. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not dispute the fact that the goods were destroyed in the fire incident, and the Revenue did not contest the occurrence of the fire. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had established a case for total waiver of the dues, allowing the application for waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

The Revenue's argument relied on the adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing that remission is not admissible for inputs not put to use. However, the Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 23 of Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, which allow remission of duty for goods lost or destroyed by natural causes. Since the Revenue did not dispute the fire incident but only contested the adequacy of precautionary measures, the Tribunal granted the waiver of dues.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to produce evidence supporting their claim that the duties in question were not part of their insurance claim during the regular hearing. The stay petition was allowed, and the recovery of dues was stayed pending the appeal's resolution.