Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 4 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3322/2012-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 15/CE/Commr./BKJ/RTK/2012 dated 01.08.2012 passed by CCE, Rohtak]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Rohtak Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Verma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B.B. Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 26.03.2014 Date of Decision: 04.04.2014 FO ORDER NO._51389 /2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants have filed the written submission. I have also heard both the sides duly represented by Shri Denish Verma learned advocate and Shri B.B. Sharma learned AR.
2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the remission of duty in terms of the provision of Rule 21 of the Central Excise rules, in respect of the semi-finished goods/work in process, destroyed in fire accident. The Commissioner has denied the remission application on the ground that no remission is required for semi-finished goods inasmuch as Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is applicable for finished excisable goods and in process goods.
3. I find that there is no dispute about the fact of the fire accident as also about the destruction of the semi-finished goods. The Commissioner has also observed that the revenue is not asking the appellant for reversal of input credit involved in such destroyed semi-finished goods. The assessee is under no obligation to pay duty on the semi-finished goods inasmuch as admittedly the same are not fully manufactured goods.
4. Tribunal in the case of Urmi Chemicals Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III 2014 (301) ELT 356 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that the semi-finished goods cannot be cleared and therefore, no duty liability would arise in respect of the destroyed semi-finished goods. In the case of Lakshmi Precision Tools Ltd.-2006 (199) ELT 77 (Tri.-Chennai), it was held that the stock in process goods can not be called upon to pay duty..
5. Admittedly, in the present case the appellant is not liable to pay duty on the semi-finished goods. As such, there is no requirement to file the remission application. No duty can be confirmed against them in respect of the said semi-finished goods. In fact, I find that vide impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not confirmed any duty against the assessee and has simplicitor rejected the remission application, which is not going to adversely effect the appellants.
6. Accordingly, without going into the technical issue is as to whether the remission is required in semi-finished goods are not, as I am of the views the appellant is not liable to pay any duty, the rejection or acceptance of the remission application is in effective. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in above manner.
(Pronounce in the open Court on..) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
2