TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed due to reasons beyond the control of the party, the demand of duty on such goods is not sustainable. I, therefore, hold that the demand of duty of Rs.40,97,341.00 on the goods, both semi-finished and finished, which were destroyed completely due to fire accident caused by Short Circuit, is not sustainable. Whether CENVAT Credit reversed by the party was unwarranted? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner has observed that the duty reversed by the party amounting to Rs.41,01,620.00 was correct. Whether the party's settlement of insurance claim with respect to finished goods and semi-finished goods has any bearing on the case from revenue point? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding this issue b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to ascertain the amount settled by the insurance company after verification of the documents. The Commissioner, on remand, noted that though the Tribunal had remanded a specific issue to the adjudicating authority, but still proceeded to observe that since the entire order of the adjudicating authority was under appeal before the Tribunal, it was necessary to consider all the aspects covered by the earlier order that was under challenge before the Tribunal. Thus, after examining the entire matter, the Commissioner observed as follows:- 5. In view of above, pass the order as follows: a. I allow remission of duty of Rs. 1,19,232.00 only, pertaining to duty on finished goods. b. I drop demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.40,97,341. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise duty was also required in case of finished and semi-finished goods destroyed in fire and, therefore, requested the Department for remission of the central excise duty on semi-finished goods as well as finished goods. 7. A show cause notice dated 27 August, 2009 was, however, issued to the appellant proposing to reject the remission of central excise duty on the ground that the fire accident cannot be treated as a natural cause or unavoidable accident and, therefore, central excise duty of Rs.40,97,341/- was payable by the appellant. The show cause notice also required the appellant to pay interest on CENVAT credit of Rs.41,01,620/- belatedly reversed by the appellant. The appellant submitted a detailed reply to the Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods, for the reason that excise duty is a levy on the manufacture of the goods and unless goods are removed from the factory, no duty liability can be fastened against the assessee. In this case, since the semi-finished goods have not been removed from the factory, duty demand is not in conformity with the statutory provisions, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Urmi Chemicals vs. CCE-Mumbai-II reported in 2014 (301) ELT 356 (Tri. - Mum). The Cenvat Statute find that cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product and the semi-finished goods available in the factory were wrongly reversed by the appellant based on the request made by the Range Officers. nowhere provides that in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the actual amount settled by the Insurance Company upon verification of the documents submitted/to be submitted by the appellant. 8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority for ascertaining the claim amount settled by Insurance company. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 10. It is, therefore, clear that the adjudicating authority, on remand, had only to examine the actual amount settled by the insurance company upon verification of the documents submitted by the appellant, but the Commissioner proceeded to examine all the issues. 11. In this context, it needs to be noted that the Commissioner framed the following three issues for consideration:- a. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he earlier round of proceedings. The Commissioner clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding this issue by going beyond the terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal as all that was required to be determined by the Commissioner on remand was to verify whether the element of excise duty involved in the goods destroyed by the fire accident was paid by insurance company or not. This issue has now been decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner. 16. The order passed by the Commissioner holding that the appellant is not entitled to remission of duty on semi-finished goods, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appellant is entitled to remission of duty availed on semi-finished goods burnt/damaged to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
