2017 (7) TMI 1134 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of duty on goods lost in Floods - appellant had sought remission of duty on finished goods but pending - Held that - It would appear that the remission of duty on goods lost in the flood is as yet pending before the competent authority. In these circumstances the demand for recovery of duty on finished goods was premature and such payment would become obligatory only on disposal of application for remission - The matter is therefore remanded to the original authority for re-computation of the duty liability on finished goods to the extent that it is not covered by remission of duty accorded by the competent authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of duty on goods lost in floods, remission of duty on finished goods, reliance on legal precedents, remand for computation of duty liability.

Analysis:
The case involved proceedings against M/s Arofine Chemical Industries for the recovery of duty on various goods claimed to have been lost in floods. The duty demand was confirmed, and the first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant had requested remission of duty on finished goods and had received a sum from their insurer, which was stated to include the excise duty component.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited legal judgments to support their case, including a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and a ruling of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. It was noted that the remission of duty on goods lost in the flood was still pending before the competent authority. The tribunal found that the demand for recovery of duty on finished goods was premature, as the obligation to pay such duty would arise only after the application for remission was disposed of. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the original authority for the re-computation of the duty liability on finished goods not covered by the remission of duty.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was allowed by way of remand for the computation of any duty liability that may exist on the finished goods. The judgment highlights the importance of following due process in duty recovery cases and waiting for the competent authority's decision on remission before demanding payment.