TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Larger Bench of the tribunal in the case of Honest Vio-Bet Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is relevant, where it was held that the claim of remission cannot be rejected on the ground that the goods were destroyed after clearance from the factory in the circumstances when the goods were cleared for the purpose of export. Delay in giving intimation to department - Held that:- The impugned order does not identify in what manner the procedure prescribed in the Central Excise Manual has not been followed. To that extent, the said order is not speaking order. The impugned order is therefore set aside and matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - Appeal allowed by way of remand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue to verify the correctness of the claim and loss of excisable goods and the appellant's claim is solely based on the Survey report of M/s Bhatawedekar Company. Learned Counsel argued that they had cleared the goods under ARE-I form to their godown. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. - 2004 (173) ELT 475 (Tri-Mum) to assert that there is no requirement of registration of godown where goods cleared for export are stored. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. He argued that the remission claim was not submitted with the proof of reversal of CENVAT Credit involved in goods used in manufacture of finished goods. He argued that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven u/s 4(3)(C)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under these circumstances, ownership of the goods and duty liability is also extended up to the load port and if, the goods are not exported, concerned manufacturer will be required to discharge the duty liability. Therefore, 'removal' also gets extended up to the port of shipment from where the sale would be completed and when the goods were to be exported. Hence, if the goods cleared for export under Bond are destroyed before the export, ownership of the said goods and also duty liability, if any, would be always to the account of appellant assessee and that the said goods could be considered having been destroyed before removal and the benefit of Remission of duty is allowabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with the suggestion regarding the submission of survey report as an evidence of detraction subject to due scrutiny by the Revenue. In these circumstances, we find that there is merit in the appeal of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1235/2008 relating to remission of duty. The impugned order is therefore set aside and matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on above terms. 4.2 In so far as Appeal No. E/1127/2008 is concerned, the same relates to rejection of refund claim, which essentially depends on the decision of Commissioner on the issue of remission. Since the main issue has been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision, the appeal No. E/1127/2008 is also allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
