9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay appropriate amount of duty. I find that the Appellate Authority is correct in concluding that duty on the finished goods as well as raw materials cannot be demanded merely because the appellants have not applied for the remission of duty. The finished goods and the raw materials were admittedly never cleared from the approved premises of the respondent. There is no legal provision to sustain recovery of duty only on the ground that remission application has not been filed in respect of goods lost in fire. The Tribunal in Mira Chemicals (2007 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ) relying on the earlier decided cases held that when the goods were admittedly destroyed the fact that a proper application for remission of duty has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 resulting in loss of inputs, capital goods and stock in progress. The duty was sought to be demanded as the respondent did not make any application for remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. During audit of the records of the unit, the department found that the respondents unit had a fire accident in August, 2002 also resulting in loss of inputs, finished goods and capital goods. The Original Authority confirmed duty and imposed penalty of equivalent amount in both the cases. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order set aside the original order and allowed the appeals. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. AR elaborated on the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the provisions of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 6. I have examined the impugned order in detail. Regarding the duty demand/reversal of credit on capital goods, the impugned order finds that there is no legal provision during the material period for demanding duty on such damaged capital goods. These capital goods were still lying in the factory. As correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals), the capital goods damaged in 2005 are bound by the provisions of Rule 5 A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 introduced w.e.f. 16.05.2005 and at the time of clearance of these goods, in whichever shape, they have to pay appropriate amount of duty. I find that the Appellate Authority is correct in concluding that duty on the finished goods as well as raw materials cannot be demanded merely beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
