Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S Kohinoor Rubber Mills on 27 July, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017 Single Member Bench COURT NO.1 Excise Appeal No. E/56322/2013-SM [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Chd/07/2012 dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi] Date of Hearing/Decision: 27.07.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Ludhiana Appellant Vs. M/s Kohinoor Rubber Mills Respondent
Appearance Shri H. Singh, AR- for the appellant Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61013/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the adjudication order demanding duty from the respondent on account of the goods lost in fire during the pendency the claim of remission of duty.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent intimated to the department on 25.08.2007 that the fire has broken out at their factory premised and caused of destruction of their finished excisable goods, semi-finished goods and inputs. These finished goods and inputs were destroyed as such and inputs contained in semi-finished goods also destroyed. Thereafter, on 27.08.2007 the respondent had correspondence with the department stating the fire incidence took in their factory on 25.08.2007 at 11 am. On 19.09.2007, the respondent applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 providing detail chart of showing finished goods destroyed, the cost of these goods and Central Excise Duty involved thereon. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent to demand duty on the goods lost in fire. The adjudication authority during the pendency of claim of remission of duty filed by the respondent holds that as finished goods have been held as claim of remission of duty has not been finalised. In that circumstance, the respondent is liable to pay duty on finished goods destroyed in fire. Consequently, the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (A) who set aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me.
3. Heard the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue who submits that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order is incorrect as he hold that the claim of remission of duty was pending before the Ld. Commissioner, therefore, demanding duty by way of adjudication order is pre mature. It is his submissions that the claim of remission of duty was rejected and intimated on 04.12.2012, therefore, order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) on 11.12.2012 is contrary to the facts. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the order of rejection of remission of duty was conveyed only after 11.12.2012 i.e. on 19.12.2012 the order was passed by Ld. Commissioner (A) much earlier, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (A).
5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions.
6. On hearing both the sides, I find that in this case the claim of the Revenue is that they have conveyed the order of rejection of claim of remission of duty on 04.12.2012 and claim of the respondent is that no intimation was given prior to 11.12.2012. There is factual error either both of the sides, therefore, both the sides were asked to file an affidavit in support of their claim. As directed by this Tribunal, the respondent filed an affidavit that till 11.12.2012, no intimation of the order of rejection of claim of remission of duty was intimated either to the respondent or to the Ld. Commissioner (A). But no affidavit has been filed by the Revenue to support their claim that they have intimated order of rejection of claim of remission of duty on 04.12.2012 but the Ld. AR today submitted that it was intimated only on 19.12.2012. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. As the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly held that the adjudication order of demanding duty from the respondent is pre mature.
7. Further, as it is facts on record that there is no intimation order of rejection of claim of remission of duty was sent till 11.12.2012 either to the respondent or to the Ld. Commissioner (A), therefore, the appeal was not in required to be filed by the Revenue before this Tribunal and the ground taken by the Revenue in their appeal is only the order of rejection of claim of remission of duty was intimated on 04.12.2012. It shows that the department officers are not verifying the records before filing the appeal and file the appeals in over enthusiasm. In that circumstances, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise the concerned range is requested to direct their officers that for filing the appeal before this Tribunal shall verify the correctness of the facts of the case failing which this Tribunal shall be constraint to take a serious action against erring officers.
The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1