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

2017 (3) TMI 1121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fire has due to reasons beyond the control of the appellants. This establishes the fact that the fire was nothing but an unfortunate accident - reliance was placed in the case of Sumit Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kanpur [2015 (12) TMI 1594 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] - this is a fit case for grant of remission under both Central Excise as well as Custom provisions. Once remission is granted for Excise and Customs duties in respect of goods destroyed in the fire accident, there will be no justification for the demands made in the impugned order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/258/2012-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 51944 /2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 23-2-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Cha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... procured without payment of duty for use in the 100% EOU. Against the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. With the above background, we have heard Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Jain ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. 4. The ld. Counsel s submission is that it is not disputed that fire actually happened in the mid-night of 27/28 February 2010. The fire station Pithampur has certified vide their certificate dated 13.03.2010, that the fire was an accident inspite of having adequate fire fighting equipments and provisions of sufficient water available in the appellant s company. Inspite of that the ld. Commissioner has rejected the claim for remission filed by the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontention of the Ld. Counsel. He submitted that the goods were procured without payment of duty on the condition that the same should be used for manufacture of goods in the 100% EOU, which was meant to be exported. Since, this condition is not satisfied and the goods have been destroyed, the appellant will be liable to pay the duty forgone on goods procured duty free. 7. The appellant, who is a 100% EOU, has procured indigenous goods without payment of duty by availing the benefit of Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 21.03.2003. Likewise, they also procured imported goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003. In the fire, which took place in the factory on the mid-night of 27-28th February, 2010 al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case. We find that the District Fire Officer, Pithampur, has certified, vide his certificate dated 13.03.2010 that adequate firefighting equipment and provisions of sufficient water was available with the appellant and sufficient efforts were made to put off the fire by the company. Accordingly, the fire department has certified that there is no foul play and that the fire has due to reasons beyond the control of the appellants. This establishes the fact that the fire was nothing but an unfortunate accident. The appellant has relied upon, the following case laws to support the argument that they were entitled to the grant of remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules as well as Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. i. Sumit Ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ments to be fulfilled by the assessee to claim remission stands fully satisfied. The Commissioner was wholly in error in denying the said benefit on the ground that the said benefit is not entitled to EOU under the notification and that the assessee did not take care of the goods imported and also on the ground that the Managing Director of the assessee admitted discrepancy in the figures. All these factors which weighed with the Commissioner are totally extraneous for considering the claim for remission under Section 23 of the Act. The Tribunal on proper appreciation of the material on record and correct interpretation of Section 23 of the Act was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and in granting re .....

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