Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (7) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) The cenvat credit in respect of inputs contained in the finished goods destroyed in the fire is reversed/paid by the assessee. The Divisional Assistant Commissioner to quantify and communicate this amount to the assessee within 30 days. (ii) the duty involved on the salvaged goods sold, is paid; (iii) duty of Rs. 1,336/- in respect of the dyes and chemicals returned, as such, to the suppliers is also paid; and, (iv) interest on the above amounts is paid as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 33. The assessee is also required to reverse/pay the cenvat credit in respect of the packing materials and raw materials (inputs) destroyed in the fire, amounting to Rs.3,16,889/- und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntained, inter alia, a reference to the surveyor's report considered by the insurance company. The aforesaid demand of Rs.3,16,889/- on packing materials and other chemicals was worked out on the basis of the surveyor's report. However, the show-cause notice did not accept the plea of destruction of goods in fire. It assumed that the goods were removed clandestinely without payment of duty. 3. The assessee contested the show cause notice on numerous grounds. At the same time, they also pressed for remission of duty on the goods which were claimed to have been destroyed in fire. This claim was pursued under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue arising out of the show-cause notice and the remission application were adjudicate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arned SDR has opposed the above arguments of the counsel and has also reiterated the grounds stated in the department's appeal. 6. After considering the submissions, I find that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner pursuant to a remand order of this Tribunal wherein any issue on merits had not been considered. In other words, the issues arise for consideration on merits at this stage for the first time. The show cause notice was issued at a time when the assessee's remission application was pending. This Tribunal took note of this aspect and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication of the show-cause notice after disposing of the remission application. The first question, therefore, is whether the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his report is also based on the surveyor's report. The learned Commissioner has accepted the quantification made by the Assistant Commissioner in his report and accordingly duty of over Rs.8.17 lakhs has been allowed as remission to the assessee in respect of the finished goods in question. In the present appeal, the department has not come out with any alternative account, calculation or other data in support of the plea that the quantification done by the Commissioner is not correct. In this scenario, the Commissioner's order granting remission of duty of Rs.8,17,271/- on the finished goods has to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. As regards the relevant condition attached to such grant of remission, I have found a valid point i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only and not in quantitative terms. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner observed that there was no dispute with regard to this demand. A perusal of the records at my end has clearly brought out the existence of a dispute. Therefore, this part of the case requires to be re-adjudicated by the Commissioner. 9. For the reasons stated above, it is ordered as under: (a)The challenge against the remission of duty of Rs.8,17,271/- on the finished goods is rejected and the condition attached to the remission of duty in para 32(i) of the order is set aside. (b)The decision recorded in para 33 of the Commissioner's order is set aside and the question whether the assessee should be required to reverse any CENVAT credit on raw materials .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates