9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of the aforesaid goods for export. The exemption is subject to the condition that the goods manufactured out of the raw materials are to be exported out of India and the appellant had executed a bond binding themselves to use the goods imported or procured indigenously for the purpose prescribed in the Notification and in default thereof pay the duty leviable on the goods but for the exemption contained in the aforesaid notifications. 2.1 A fire accident took place on 1-5-2003 in the factory premises of the appellant, which was informed by the appellant to the jurisdictional Range officer vide letter dated 2-5-2003. On receipt of the said letter on 7-5-2003, the Central Excise officer issued a letter dated 2-6-2003 seeking the details of the losses on account of fire accident and the noticee vide letter dated 16-7-2003 submitted a statement showing the quantity and value of goods damaged/destroyed in the fire. 2.2 The Range Officer vide letter dated 6-8-2003 requested the appellant to submit details as to whether the goods lost/destroyed were finished goods or raw materials, quantity, value and duty involved at the time of procurement, copy of the police panchanama, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Act, 1944 and in terms of B-17 bond executed by them. He also ordered for recovery of interest on duty amount under the provisions of Section 28B of the said Customs Act and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,32,51,116/- under the provisions of Section 112 read with Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appellants are before us. 3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that in reply to the show-cause notice, they had sought remission of duty of the goods lost/destroyed in the fire under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the indigenously procured goods and under Section 23 of the Customs Act in respect of imported goods. However, this was not granted to them on the ground that they did not file any application for remission of duty at the relevant time and only at the time of reply to the show-cause notice they had made a claim for remission. The ld. Advocate relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Next Fashion Creators v. C.C., Bangalore reported in 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1015 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if goods are lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident they would not be deemed to have been used for the intended purpose and, therefore, pre-deposit of the dues adjudged was ordered by this Tribunal. He also relies on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of HSBC Electronic Data Processing India (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.- Bang.) wherein it was held that Rule 21 is applicable only to the manufacturer of excisable goods and it is not applicable to buyers of the goods and the question of grant of remission will not arise in such a case and the Tribunal ordered for pre-deposit part of the dues adjudged. As regards the plea of remission of duty by the appellant, the ld. AR submits that as evidenced from the records of the case, the appellant did not file any application nor make any claim for remission of duty when the fire accident occurred in 2003; they also did not co-operate with the department in the determination of loss in spite of several letters and reminders by the department seeking information. Further, they also did not comply with the summons issued by the department. Therefore, from the conduct of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther contended that the raw materials had been issued for manufacture and, therefore, the Tribunal took the view that they have not been lost or destroyed either during transit or during the handling or storage and, therefore, the Tribunal allowed remission of duty holding that explanation to Rule 6 of the said Rules will not apply to the circumstances of this case. Similarly in the case of Next Fashion Creators relied upon the Advocate, the claim for remission on account of goods lost in fire was rejected because there was huge variation between the insurance figures and what was stated before the Customs. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the discrepancy between the value shown in the insurance claimed and what was informed to the Customs cannot be a valid ground for rejection of claim for remission. In the case under consideration before us, the facts are completely different and distinguishable. In this case, the claim for remission was rejected by the Commissioner in his order for the reason that the appellant did not make any claim for remission of duty immediately after the occurrence of the fire accident. Further, the appellant did not co-operate with the department and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudged. 7. The ld. Advocate for the appellant also made a point that there is no limitation prescribed in law for claiming remission and, therefore, remission can be claimed at any point of time. We are not impressed with this argument. In a number of judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that when the statute does not prescribe any time limit, then the action has to be initiated within a reasonable time and what is reasonable would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GOI v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.) held as follows :- "In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that authority is to exercise powers within a reasonable period and what would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case and whenever a question regarding the unordinary delay in issue of demand notice is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, notice or demand of recovery is made within the reasonable period. No h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
