9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the permissible limit, as per the circulars, he has to follow the procedure prescribed under Ru/e 21 of the Rules. Only after an order is made granting remission in respect of the goods so lost due to natural circumstances, he could be exempted from payment of excise duty" Remission of duty on storage losses cannot be claimed by the respondent even when no remission application has been filed by them and it is established to the satisfaction of the competent authority that such loss is due to circumstances referred to in Rule 21 ibid. - Demand confirmed - Decided in favor of revenue. - F.No.198/242/2012-RA-CX - ORDER NO- 15/2016-CX - Dated:- 27-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 139/CE/MRT-1/2012 dated 11.06.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Meerut-l with respect to Order-in-original No. 24/AC/MZN-11/2011 dated 31.0512011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Muzaffarnagar-ll against M/S Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar(hereinafter re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged violation of Rule 4 of the said Rules. 2.1. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated. The Assistant Commissioner, Muzaffar Nagar, Division-Il vide Order-in-Original No.24/AC/MZN-II/201 dated 31105.2011 confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 10,092/and imposed penalty of equivalent amount along with interest. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 139/CE/MRT-I/2012 dated 11.02.2012 set aside the Order-in-Original and appeal of the respondent was allowed. 4. The Applicant has now filed this Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Government mainly on the following grounds: 4.1. That the respondent appealed that the quantity of molasses in question was in fact storage loss due to natural cause but could not produce any application for remission of duty before the competent authority. 4.2. That Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is very clear on remission of duty. That as per this rule where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of Tribunal in the case of Avis Electronics (P) Ltd. 2000 (117) El-ET. 571 (Tri-LB) that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rules, it should be performed in that manner itself and not otherwise. 4.7. That the Central Government may revise the Order-in-Appeal No. 139/CE/MRT-I/2012 dated 11.062012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-l and restore the Order-in-Original No. 24/AC/MZN-II/2011 dated 31.05.2011, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Muzaffarnagar-ll, in the case of M/S Triveni Engineering Ind. Ltd., Bhikki Bilaspur, Jolly Road, Muzaffarnagar, or pass such order as deemed fit. 5. A show cause notice was also issued to the Respondent on 15.04.2013 in response to which the following submissions have been made: 5.1. That the impugned Order-in-Appeal narrates correctly the facts that the solvents, spirits, alcohol etc are volatile in nature and can evaporate over a period of time. That the percentage of loss was clearly indicated to be less that 0.5%. That the order also narrates factually and correctly that the loss is because of natural causes 'which are attributable to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Assistant Officer (Sales Tax and Excise), on behalf of the respondent who reiterated the submission made in the cross objection filed in response to the Revision Application. Shri Rakesh Chaturvedi, Assistant Commissioner, Division -Il, Muzaffarnagar attended the hearing on behalf of the department. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case files, oral written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that in the instant case on scrutiny of ER-I returns of the respondents for the month of April 2009 to March2010, it has been observed that they have shown some quantity of denatured rectified spirit as process loss after production of the finished goods. The respondent has not mentioned any reason for this process loss in their ER-I return. As excise duty 'is leviable on the manufacture of excisable goods in a factory of manufacturer in terms of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hence all the goods manufactured in the factory are liable for payment of duty except under the circumstances when the party show suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such loss/destruction is caused by natural causes or by unavoidable accident and such causes are to be shown to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner, In the present case the respondent has neither shown any reason for such loss nor applied for remission of duty as required in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of quantity shown to have been lost. 10. Government further observes that the respondent has contended that there is physical control on the clearances of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol of the State Excise Department and the Denatured or Non-denatured Ethyl Alcohol cannot be removed from the factory until issuance of a pass from State Excise Officers. Further that the State Excise Department allows 0.5% storage loss of Denatured Spirit. But in this case the respondent has failed to place on record any evidence showing that such losses occurred due to any natural cause and instead has merely shown the said losses in their ER-I return only. Any remission can be allowed in terms of Rule 21 ibid. In the present case, Government observes that the respondent has suo moto claimed remission without fulfilling the conditions laid down under Rule 21 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
