TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Remission of duty is allowable in such an exceptional situation in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/640/2004 - 21035/2017 - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. Dattatray D. Bhat, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of sale of tyres, tubes and flap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 17.10.2003 confirmed the demand and appropriated the duty amount deposited and also demanded interest of ₹ 2,90,717/- which was also deposited by the appellant. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who passed the impugned order dated 15.3.2004 holding that there is no provision in law for remission of duty and the demand of duty/interest is in order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the said appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the factual and legal position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said goods could be considered having been destroyed before removal and the benefit of Remission of duty is allowable in such an exceptional situation in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Clause (iii) in Section 4 (3) (C) for Place of removal was inserted w.e.f. 14.05.2003 vide section 136 of the Finance Act 2003 which has stipulated as under:- (iii) depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory Hence, the provision under clause (iii) in Section 4 (3) (C) for Place of Removal will be applicable in the case under consideration. 13. By referring to section 5 of Central Sales Tax Act, we also find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as required U/r 21 of Excise Rules 2002. Appellant is eligible for the Remission of duty in respect of goods for export under Bond which were destroyed before the same could be exported. 15. We find that the issue as referred to the Larger Bench, is now decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No.912 of 2012 decided on 25.07.2014. Accordingly reference to the several precedents by the ld. counsel for the assessee and by the SDR, would be of academic interest, since the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner v/s Dynamic Industries Ltd has considered the very same point which is in favour of the appellant. 5. Following the ration of the Larger Bench decision, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
