9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id fact regarding destruction of goods in fire is not under dispute. The remission application stand denied on the ground that the said raw material were received by the appellant without payment of duty against CT-3 certificate and the same has not been utilized in the manufacture of final product, which was required to be exported and as such, the condition of Notification No. 1/95-C.E, dt. 4-1-95 is not satisfied and as such, noticee has rendered themselves liable to payment of duty and interest. For rejecting the above request of the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under : "The most vital thing is that the raw material received without payment of duty under CT III was destroyed in fire and no goods were manufactured f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t." 2. Accordingly, he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 68,86,612/- along with confirmation of interest. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra and in case of M/s. Sami Lab Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 59 (Tri.-Bang.), it was observed as under : "As regards the goods indigenously procured, both capital goods and raw materials are involved. On the question that the fire accident occurred in the production premises there is ample evidence and that fact is not under dispute. This clearly indicates that the raw materials have already been issued for the intended purpose. Therefore, the materials lost in fire accident were in the form of 'work in progress'. The Revenue's conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the earlier decisions in case of M/s. Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd. 2003 (157) E.L.T. 9 (Tri.- Del.) and in case of BPCL - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.), as also in case of M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. [2006 (201) E.L.T. 18 (Tri.-Bang.)] it was held that Section 23 of the Customs Act is applicable to warehouse goods and is entitled to remission of duty. 5. At this stage, we also take note of the Single Member Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Alp Chemical Ltd. (Order No. A/1288/WZB/AHD/2008, dt. 27-6-08), vide which the appeal filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected. As the reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) in that judgment was upheld as a good reasonin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsumer. When admittedly, the goods were lost, not available to the consumer then no duty could be demanded by any person in such a situation. Only for that reason, i.e. for taking care of such situation, the Legislature or the Central Govt. had made the provisions by way of Rule 21 of CER, 2002 and by way of Section 23 of Customs Act, 1962. The remission is the just, fair and proper remedy for such a situation." 6. In the present case, there is no dispute about the destruction of the goods in fire and by adopting the ratio of the above decisions, remission of duty has to be upheld. At this stage, we also note another decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Del.), wherein rejection f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
