9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition of Rule 21 of CCR, 2002 were not fulfilled and hence remission claim is not covered under the ambit of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the goods were neither been lost/stolen nor destroyed due to natural cause or by unavoidable accident nor the claim has been filed before removal of goods but actually goods were damaged in an accidents after removal of goods form the factory. 2. At the time of arguments the ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that while passing the impugned order the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that before the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Periwal Export (supra) there was another decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of Remission of duty is under consideration, we will confine our views only to the question of Remission of duty. The Appellant claims that they had cleared goods on CIF sale basis for export, but such sale would be completed at the port of shipment because in terms of CIF Sale Contract, such goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller [appellant] of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser (ii) the seller [Appellant has borne the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and (iii) freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. As the goods in question were destroyed before sale was completed i.e. goods have to be treated as dest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Periwal Exports (supra) the party had filed the ROM Application before this Tribunal in that matter, pointing out the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Ltd (supra) and this Tribunal vide order dated 19.11.2015 in Excise Appeal No. E/33/2011-Ex (SM) M/s. Periwal Exports Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur-II held as under:- "xxx xxx xxx 3. Ms. Mansi Garg, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, remission of duty in respect of the goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or due to unavoidable accident can be allowed when the loss or destruction or unavoidable accident has taken place at any time before remova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 50 (Tri. - Ahmd.), wherein a contrary view has been taken and it has been held that when the goods were cleared for export and were lost during transit, the remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules would not be admissible. Beside this he also pleaded that in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, the remission of duty can be permitted in respect of the goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or due to unavoidable accident when such loss or destruction takes place at "any time before removal", that the words used in Rule 21 are "at any time before removal" and not "at any place before the place of removal", that in terms of Section 4 (3) (cc), the 'time of removal' even in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
