Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (1) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view the words ‘at any time before removal’ cannot be read as ‘at any place before the place of removal’; they have to be read as ‘at any time before the ‘time of removal’. In terms of the provision of Section 4 (3) (cc) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the ‘time of removal’ even in respect of the goods sold from the depot or from consignment agent’s premises or from any other place, is the time when the goods are cleared from the factory. Therefore, in respect of the goods cleared for export, even if the ‘place of removal’ is the port from where the goods are exported, the ‘time of removal’ would be the time when the goods have been cleared from the factory and, therefore, if the goods are lost during transit, for the purpose of Rule 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 08/09/09 rejected the application for remission of duty which was ₹ 4,05,048/-. The remission application was rejected on the ground that the loss had occurred after the removal of the goods while in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, the remission of duty can be permitted only when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing at any time before the removal of the goods, while in this case the loss due to fire has taken place after the removal. The Additional Commissioner also observed that in addition to this, the goods were destroyed when the driver .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the port from where the goods are to be exported and, therefore, when the goods were lost in transit, the remission of duty under Rule 21 would be admissible, that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Sree Narasimha Textiles Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 86 (Tri. - Chennai) and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri R.K. Mishra, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of S.V.G. Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - III reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Chennai), Hind Nippon Rural Indus. (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isputed facts are that the loss of the goods cleared for export and in respect of which the duty involved was ₹ 4,05,048/-, took place after the removal of the goods from the factory during transit when the truck in which the goods were loaded, met with an accident and all the goods including the truck were destroyed by the fire. The remission of duty has been claimed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 21 is reproduced below :- Rule 21:- Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit the duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions of Section 4 (3) (cc) have not been considered and these judgments have read the words at any time before removal as at any place before the place of removal , which is not permissible while interpreting a statutory provision. In view of this, I follow the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of S.V.G. Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - III reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Chennai), Hind Nippon Rural Indus. (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 414 (Tri. - Bang.), CCE, Jaipur - II vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. - Del.) and Meghmani Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - I reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 50 (Tri. - Ahmd.), wherein a contrary view has been taken and it has b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates