TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellant is an 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of granite slabs. They cleared quantity of 354 Nos. of granite slabs measuring 1230.840 square meter for export in 5 containers under ARE-1 dated 27.11.2007. Out of the 5 containers, the goods contained in 4 containers were duly exported under Shipping Bill dated 28.12.2007 except for a quantity of 48 granite slabs measuring 286.840 square meters. The said container which contained 48 granite slabs were returned to the factory in a fully damaged condition as the container met with an accident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared in DTA and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay duty. She submitted that the authorities below have relied upon the decision in Hind Nippon Rural Indus (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2004 (167) ELT 414 (Tri. Bang.) to confirm the duty. However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (310) ELT 526 (LB) has dealt with the issue as to whether remission of duty is allowable when goods cleared from the factory without payment of duty for export under bond or destroyed due to unavoidable circumstances which, after taking into account various decisions including the aforesaid decision in Hind Nippon Rules Indus (supra) has held that remission of duty under Rule 21 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said that the goods have been cleared in DTA. Further, the Larger Bench decision in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Lt. (supra) has held that remission of duty is allowable when goods cleared from the factory without payment of duty for export under bond are destroyed in an unavoidable accident. In an identical case, the Tribunal in the case of Madhav Marbles and Granites Ltd. (supra), has held that the demand of duty is not sustainable since the EOU is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 24/2003 dated 31.03.2003. 6. Following the same, we are of the view that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
