Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 125 - Central Excise
Extended period of limitation - Remission of duty - appellant’s contention is that it was switching over to a new system which caused teething troubles because which of it was unable to provide the data within time - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules - HELD THAT:- The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that this is not a decision on application for remission of duty by the appellant but is a case of demand of duty on the goods which were not received in the LMIs as required under Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules. It is also evident that the appellant had not provided the required data despite being repeatedly asked by the Range officer. Having not provided the data despite repeated requests, the appellant cannot now take shelter on the ground that the demand is time barred. The information of the extent of losses is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant and it is its responsibility to provide the data.
The appellant’s contention is that it was switching over to a new system which caused teething troubles because which of it was unable to provide the data within time. Even if it be so, the fact remains that appellant has not provided the data and is now trying to profit from its own inaction to claim that the demand is time-barred. Therefore, the appellant had actually suppressed the information from the Department and now cannot benefit by claiming that the demand is time-barred.
When a demand is made, the noticee has a right to put up whatever the defence it wants to and which may be considered and accepted or rejected by the adjudicating authority. Now the only question which remains is if the extent to which the claim of remission on account of losses has been rejected by the Commissioner is correct or otherwise - in respect of certain commodities such as Sulphur, Naptha, JBO, ATF etc, the Commissioner has reckoned condonable limit of 0%. This is probably because these products were not mentioned in Circulars of 1956 and 1959. However, since the 1981 Circular of the Board clarifies that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny and loss above 1% can be condoned after scrutiny, we find no reason to not condone losses in these cases as claimed. There is no allegation, let alone evidence, that the losses were not genuine or that the products were suspected to have been diverted or pilfered.
The appellant is entitled to remission of the losses as claimed and consequently the demand of duty on the appellant cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.