Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 110 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRemission of duty - goods destroyed in transit - Place of removal - Exports - Held that:- it is also doubtful as to whether the definition of ‘place of removal’ as given in section 4(3)(c) can be adopted for the purpose of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as in terms of section 4(3), the definitions of various terms given in this sub-section are for the purpose on this section i.e. section 4 which is applicable for determination of assessable value of the goods in respect of which there is ad-valorem rate of duty and which are not covered by section 3(2) or section 4A of the Act. The natural meaning of the expression ‘at any time before removal’ is any time before the time of clearance of the goods from the factory. Decision of KUNTAL GRANITES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE [2007 (3) TMI 540 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] is in favor of assessee. wherein it was held that, remission of duty would be admissible even in the cases where the goods are destroyed or lost in course of transit from the factory to the depots or to consignment agents premises or to the customer’s premises in the case of FOR sales or are lost/destroyed or rendered unfit for marketing during storage at the depots or at Consignment Agents premises. Single member bench states that, "I, therefore, have strong reservations about the correctness of this decision." - However, since the judgment in the case of Kuntal Granite Ltd. (Supra), is the judgment of a Devision Bench which is binding on a single bench, judicial discipline requires that this judgment must followed - Decided in favor of assessee.
|