Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 236 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRemission of duty - Demand of duty - Loss of semi-finished goods in factory the job worker on 3-8-2004 on account of heavy rains and floods - Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Appellants have sent the inputs to M/s. Alfa Drugs for conversion into semi-finished goods and such semi-finished goods, to be received by them in their factory, were to be put to further use in the manufacture of final product. The Additional Commissioner while arriving at the above finding had sought confirmation from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the appellants, who had clarified that goods to be received from job worker were semi-finished goods and they were not being entered in the RG-I register. The same were never cleared by the appellants “as such” from their factory. Rule 21 relates to the remission of duty liability to be paid only in respect of goods manufactured by the assessee. As such, it can be safely concluded that though the said Rules does not use the expression “finished goods” and simplicitor use the expression “goods”, the same has to be held as applicable to the finished goods only. Remission can be sought only when there is liability to pay the duty. The correspondence between the original adjudicating authority and the appellants jurisdictional Central Excise authorities clearly establish that the goods manufactured by the job worker were only semi-finished goods and the same were to be further used by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product. As such, even if the appellants would have received the said semi-finished goods from their job worker, there was no duty liability in respect of said goods and there was no question of remission of duty. The appellants have intimated the department about the loss of goods, and did not receive any advise from the department authorities for filing of formal remission application. In such a case, subsequent issuance of show cause notice raising demand cannot be upheld. - Following decision of IG Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VII [2001 (4) TMI 127 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] - demand is hopelessly barred by limitation. Admittedly, the appellants immediately informed their jurisdictional authorities for the loss of damaged goods. As such, raising of demand in the year 2009 by invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be appreciated - Decided in favour of assessee.
|