2017 (8) TMI 695 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - denied on the ground that the intimation to the proper officer was sent only on 18/02/2006, after a delay of 11 days. Normally, such intimations are to be given within 24 hours - Held that - there has been no action by the jurisdictional officer with reference to this mishap. No survey was conducted. No samples were drawn. In such situation, it is not correct for the Original Authority to reject the remission application without any legal basis for the same - the accident was duly reported and recognized by the Police and State Excise Authorities who had followed up the matter for further action. The Central Excise officers did not follow up for any action. When the remission application was filed the same was rejected on the grounds which are not at all sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Loss of molasses due to accident, Remission of duty, Central Excise duty demand, Rejection of remission application, Appeal against demand and penalty, Delay in intimation, Testing of damaged molasses, Jurisdictional officer's verification, Legal basis for rejection of remission application.

Loss of Molasses Due to Accident:
The case involved the loss of molasses due to an accident in the appellant's unit. The appellant's tanks leaked molasses, resulting in a significant quantity spreading over the fields and pits. The accident was reported to various authorities promptly, including Central Excise, State Excise, Police, and Insurance Company. The appellant applied for remission of duty on the lost molasses, which was rejected by the Commissioner.

Remission of Duty:
The appellant sought remission of duty on the damaged molasses under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows remission on goods lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident. The appellant argued that all normal precautions were taken, and the accident was unforeseen. State Excise Authorities confirmed the damaged molasses as unusable and permitted draining it out. The appellant's claim for remission was based on these grounds.

Central Excise Duty Demand and Penalty:
Separate proceedings were initiated to demand Central Excise duty on the lost molasses, with a penalty imposed by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalty in an impugned order, leading to the appeal by the appellant against this decision.

Rejection of Remission Application:
The Commissioner rejected the remission application primarily due to delays in intimation and filing a police complaint. The Original Authority also cited the absence of a Central Excise officer during testing of the damaged molasses as a reason for rejection. The rejection was deemed cursory and lacking substantial reasons.

Jurisdictional Officer's Verification:
The Tribunal noted the lack of verification or inspection by the jurisdictional officer, including drawing samples or surveying the damaged goods, despite the appellant's intimation. The Original Authority was criticized for not conducting any verification or providing a legal basis for rejecting the remission application.

Conclusion:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that no Central Excise duty could be demanded on the damaged molasses that were unfit for use due to the accident. The impugned orders were deemed without merit, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper verification and legal basis for rejecting remission applications in such cases.