TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the identical ground was not upheld - there is no dispute about the destruction of the goods in fire and by adopting the ratio of the above decisions, remission of duty has to be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1712 & 1718/2005 - A/2220-2221/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 8-10-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the remission of duty in respect of raw material, which was destroyed in the factory premises of the appellant on account of post Godhra Carnage Development. It is seen from the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d binding to pay an amount equal to the duty leviable and the goods and interest @ 20% p.a. on the said duty from the date of duty free procurement of said goods till the date of actual payment. As per the decision of CESTAT in the case of M/s. Pasupathi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras 1996 (88) E.L.T. 795 (Tribunal) warehousing provisions come into play consequent upon the warehousing of the goods and the appellants are liable to pay duty in terms of warehousing provisions and the bond executed by them in respect of goods which are not exported. Bond responsibility is also last on the appellants for exporting of the goods which have been re warehoused. Here in this case, the notice has failed to fulfil his export liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have not been used for the intended purpose. We find that the order of the original authority is well reasoned. Therefore, we hold that the raw materials/capital goods which are in the premises of production would not be hit by the Explanation to Rule 6. The above goods have actually been used for the intended purpose. The accident is not the making of the appellant and it should be considered to be an Act of God. Hence, it is not correct to demand the duty forgo. We allow the appeal with consequential relief. 4. Similarly, in case of M/s. Next Fashion Creators (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1015 (Tri.-Bang.), it was held that the imported duty free material by a 100% EOU, when destroyed in fire, is entitled to remiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been forgone, cannot be justified. When the appellant procured material on CT-2 or CT-3 certificate or imported for intended purpose, they were very much eligible for such exemption, remission or postponement of collection of duty. When the natural accident, cause of breaking up of the fire had consumed those goods which were not made available either for home consumption or in the manufacture of final finished dutiable goods, then how the demand could be confirmed against the appellant. Obviously, they would not be in a position to realize such payment from their potential or actual buyers. The taxes on goods, which may be a raw material or input for one, was a finished material for the other, being indirect tax; its burden have to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
