Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd on 14 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. E/898/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CPA/07/M-IV/07 dated 22/3/2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-Zone-I For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV
:
Appellants
VS
M/s. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance
Shri Manish Mohan, SDR Authorized Representative
Shri H.C. Daruwala, Advocate, for Respondents
CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of decision : 14/10/2009
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is filed by the Revenue along with the stay application.
2. The issue involved in this case is that the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has observed that at the time rejecting remission, the Commissioner has not followed the principles of natural justice and that the show cause notice issued for non remission of duty by the Commissioner does not legally stand and in the impugned order the lower appellate authority has remanded the matter to process the case of duty remission and for the sanction by the Commissioner as per law.
3. The learned SDR submitted that the issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not that of the remission of duty, which has been rejected but that of demand of Central Excise duty on the goods damaged during the transit and subsequently destroyed. Since the rejection of remission of duty has been communicated to the respondent. The respondent ought to have made a separate appeal for rejection of the same, which is not done, therefore it has reached finality and the respondents appealed on the decision of the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of duty on the goods damaged in transit and subsequently destroyed and the issue of remission is not decided in the Order-in-Original and the lower appellate authority asking to process the case of duty remission is not legal and needs to be set aside.
4. Heard.
5. I find that the Commissioner has granted the permission for destruction and accordingly the goods were destroyed under the supervision of the departmental officer and the report was also sent to the Commissioner. But the request for remission of duty was rejected by the Commissioner and as such Dy. Commissioner has issued and confirmed demand of Rs.1,88,500/- as duty. As all the facts are intimated to the department from time to time and while rejecting remission, the Commissioner has not followed the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that destruction permission follows with remission of duty. So the show cause notice issues for non-remission of duty is not legal and the lower appellate authority has rightly remanded back the matter for process the case of duty remission and for sanction by the Commissioner of Central Excise as per law. I do not fit any infirmity in the impugned order the same is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3