2010 (4) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty- the appellants are the manufacturer of glass and glassware and were availing Cenvat credit on the input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The appellants filed a claim of remission of duty involved on damaged/broken tableware/kitchenware due to heavy rain on 6-9-2003. The claim of remission of duty was rejected. Hence this appeal. Held that- in the light of the decision of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut 2007 (10) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI, assessee not negligent in safeguarding goods and nobody will invite rain to destroy goods. Impugned order denying remission set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for remission of duty on damaged tableware/kitchenware due to heavy rain.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of glass and glassware, filed a claim for remission of duty on tableware/kitchenware damaged by heavy rain. The claim was rejected based on various grounds. The rejection was primarily due to the delay in submitting the claim, failure to safeguard the goods, lack of following proper procedure, and non-reversal of duty involved in the damaged goods. The appellant appealed against this rejection.

The appellant's representative argued that despite taking reasonable precautions, the glassware was damaged by heavy rain, which was beyond their control. The delay in informing the department was justified as it took time to assess the damage accurately. The appellant had not cleared the damaged goods, so no duty liability arose. The representative cited precedents where remission claims were allowed in similar circumstances, emphasizing that heavy rain was an unavoidable event.

After considering both sides, the tribunal found that the goods were indeed destroyed due to heavy rain. The tribunal disagreed with the lower authority's assessment that the appellant had not taken sufficient precautions. It was noted that the appellant filed the claim after verifying the actual stocks, and the duty liability did not arise as the damaged goods were not cleared. The tribunal also highlighted that the appellant had not claimed duty from the insurance company, and CENVAT credit was available. Precedents cited by the appellant's representative were deemed applicable to the case, emphasizing that the appellant was not negligent in safeguarding their goods.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision was based on the understanding that the appellant was not at fault for the damage caused by heavy rain, and the rejection of the remission claim was unjustified.