Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rajapalayam Cement & Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/PD/513/2007 and E/472/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.45/COMMR/2007 dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P. KARTHIKEYAN
Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Rajapalayam Cement & Chemicals Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv. for the Appellants Shri B.L. Meena, SDR for the Respondent CORAM:
Mr. P. KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 05.03.2008 Date of decision : 05.03.2008 FINAL ORDER NO.____________ The facts of the case are that a quantity of 220.660 Mts. of cement got solidified and became unfit for marketing as the same was damaged in the heavy rains of Oct.-Nov.04. After receiving report of the damages suffered, an application dated 9.12.2004 for remission of duty due on the damaged goods was filed by the appellant. The Range Officer visited the factory on 29.12.2004. An engineer of CPWD certified that approximately 220 MTs of cement lying in the silo of the assessees factory had become unfit for consumption and marketing. The material had lost properties of cement. After due process of law, the Commissioner found that the impugned stock of cement had got damaged due to moisture formed in the silo due to rain. This property of the cement was a matter of common knowledge. He found the contention of the assessee that the cement got drenched due to natural causes deserving remission as not sustainable. The Commissioner attributed the damage suffered by the impugned quantity of cement to the failure of the assessee to safeguard excisable goods on which duty was payable. Accordingly, he demanded the duty, interest and imposed penalty as discussed earlier.
2. Heard both sides.
3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions by both parties. As submitted by both parties, there were rains of unprecedented intensity all over Tamil Nadu during Oct.-Nov.04. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, there was widespread damage in the state owing to the unanticipated fury of the rains. The finished goods of the assessee cannot be held to have been left to the vagaries of nature by the assessee without regard to its value. As submitted by the counsel, the loss to the assessee was more than Rs.5 lakhs when the impugned cement got drenched in rain. In the circumstances, I am convinced that the finished goods got damaged owing to natural causes and that the remission sought by the assessee has to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P. KARTHIKEYAN) MEMBER (T) ksr 05-03-2008 ??
??
??
??
2