2013 (7) TMI 131 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Loss after removal of goods from the factory. - Held that - As per Rule 21 of the said rules, remission of duty is allowed if the loss of goods occurs due to natural or unavoidable accident, at any time before removal of goods from factory of manufacture. In the instant case, the goods were removed from factory and loss had occurred after removal of goods. As such, remission of duty sought in this case is not covered in the provision of said Rule 21. Case law of Tribunal in case of Sree Narasimha Textiles Ltd. 2008 (9) TMI 328 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , is not applicable to this case as much as the said case law deals with Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944; while this remission claim is in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Remission of duty on stolen goods due to theft after removal from factory.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for remission of duty filed by a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting goods, which suffered a theft of goods in transit from the factory to the port of export. The company claimed that the theft constituted an unavoidable accident and sought remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules. The company had taken precautions, including insurance coverage, to ensure the safe delivery of the goods. The central issue was whether the theft of goods after removal from the factory qualified as a loss for remission of duty.

The company contended that the loss due to theft was an unavoidable accident falling under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules. They cited precedents where similar circumstances were considered as loss due to unavoidable accident. The company argued that since the goods had not reached the customs office where export documents were to be presented, they had not been officially removed, and therefore, the theft should be considered a loss before removal.

The government, however, noted that under Rule 21, remission of duty is allowed only if the loss occurs before the removal of goods from the factory. In this case, the goods had already been removed from the factory when the theft took place. The government distinguished the present case from the cited precedents, stating that the facts were different, and the specific rule governing remission of duty was not applicable to the circumstances of the theft post-removal. Consequently, the government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the remission application.

In conclusion, the Revision Application was deemed devoid of merit, and the government rejected the application for remission of duty on the stolen goods. The judgment emphasized the importance of the specific provisions of Rule 21 in determining eligibility for remission of duty and clarified that the circumstances of the theft in this case did not align with the requirements for remission as per the rule.