Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 29 May, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/371/2009 (Arising out of OIO-11/COMMISSIONER/2009 dated 06.02.2009, passed by Commissioner Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad ) M/s. Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant For Respondent (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 29.05.2015 ORDER No. A/10725 / 2015 Dated 29.05.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I rejected the appellants application dated 15.10.2008 for remission of duty, for the goods destroyed by fire, under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal by Miscellaneous Order No. M/988/WZB/AHD/2009 dated 01.08.2009, directed registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble President for consideration, as to whether the disputed issue should be placed before the Larger Bench in view of the contrary decisions of the Tribunals. The relevant portion of the said order dated 01.8.2009, is reproduced below:-
2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to remission of duty in respect of such goods, in terms of the Provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The same stands denied by the lower authorities on the ground that the goods already stand removed from the factory and as such remission cannot be granted in terms of Rule 21. On the other hand it is the appellants contention that in case of goods under export the place of removal gets extended up to the port area and in as much as the goods were destroyed before they could be loaded, they are entitled for the remission. For the above proposition they have relied upon the Provisions of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax which are to the effect that in the course of import or export a sale or purchase of the goods shall be deemed to take place, when such export is affected by transfer of documents of title to the goods have crossed the custom frontier of India. As such it stands contended that in as much as the sale had not taken place and since place of removal of goods in export is port area, the benefit of Rule 21 is required to be extended to them.
2. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal, by miscellaneous order No. M/14401/2014-WZB/AHD dated 04.09.2014 answered the reference in favour of the appellant. It has been held that in cases where goods removed from factory for export under Bond are destroyed before export due to unavoidable accident, then in such situation the goods destroyed are to be treated as having been destroyed before removal in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned order can not be sustained and it is set-aside. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL 3