9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same to M/s. Alfa Drugs Ltd. for job work, the said goods got damaged in the factory the job worker on 3-8-2004 on account of heavy rains and floods. The appellants informed about the said damage to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on 2-11-2004. It was clarified that due to heavy rains and flash floods, the inputs sent by them to the job worker were destroyed on 3-8-2004 and the details of the partially processed or work-in-progress goods as on the date of flood was also given. In their subsequent letter dated 30-9-2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division, they intimated that inasmuch as the same processed goods were not received back by them from their job worker within a period of 180 days fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be considered to be finished goods liable to pay duty. Inasmuch the goods were semi-finished goods, no duty liability would arise against the appellant. He also held the demand to be barred by limitation and held that as the appellant have already reversed the Cenvat credit involved on the inputs, in such a scenario, no further demand can be raised against them. The said order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide its impugned order reversed the same. Hence the present appeal. 3. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Jay Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri R.K. Mishra, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, I find that there is no dispute on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product. As such, even if the appellants would have received the said semi-finished goods from their job worker, there was no duty liability in respect of said goods and there was no question of remission of duty. 5. In any case, and in any view of the matter, I find that Revenue is not disputing the fact of destruction of said goods in the job worker factory on account of floods. The only objection raised by the Revenue is that they have not filed remission application in terms of Rule 21. Further the fact that appellant intimated the Revenue about the destruction of said goods along with details is also not being disputed. Tribunal in the case of Mira Chemicals v. CCE, Surat-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
