TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unavoidable accidents then in such situation the goods destroyed are to be treated as having being destroyed before involve in terms of Rule 21 of CER, 2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/50933/2018-Ex [SM] - Final Order No. 52011/2018 - Dated:- 24-5-2018 - Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Mr. Bipin Garg, (Adv.) For the Respondent : Mr. P. Juneja, D.R. ORDER Per: Ajay Sharma This appeal has been filed from the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.12.2013. While dismissing the appeal of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Periwal Exports Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur-II reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As duty is on manufacture , and collected on removal , the term removal is more relevant, which would apply to place from where the sale takes place or the ownership of goods transferred from seller to buyer at the time of removal from such place. The provisions of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides that Remission can be allowed when goods in question 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. Hence, in absence of any clear definition of Removal , in our considered view, the phrase place of Removal is an important expression/factor, which has to be decided first for charging duty or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Larger Bench, as now decided by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 912 of 2012 decided on 25-7-2014. 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. Dynamic Industries Ltd. has considered the very same point which is in favour of the appellant. 16. In view of the foregoing, we hold that in cases where goods removed from factory for export under Bond are destroyed before export, due to unavoidable accident, then in such situation the goods destroyed are to be treated as having been destroyed before removal in terms of Rule 21 of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, 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 v. 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. v. CCE, Chennai-III reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Chennai), Hind Nippon Rural Indus. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 414 (Tri. - Bang.); CCE, Jaipur-II v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
