2007 (3) TMI 540 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Redefines 'Place of Removal' for Exports, Impacts Duty on Goods Destroyed Pre-Sale Completion in Transit.

KUNTAL GRANITES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's decision, and provided consequential relief. It clarified the interpretation of 'place of ... Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - Place of removal - Exports goods destroyed due to unavoidable reasons, accident caused to the lorry - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the goods were exported and when export documents are presented to the Customs office, then that is the place of removal as per Section 5 of C.E. Act. The same finding has been rendered by this bench in the case of Koeleman India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore [2005 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]. There is no reason to take a different view from the same. The finding recorded by SMB in Ginni Filaments Ltd.[2005 (4) TMI 156 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], is sub silentio without due consideration to the provisions of law. Hence Both the orders are set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any. Issues:1. Rejection of application seeking revision of central excise duty under Rule 21 due to goods destruction in an accident.2. Interpretation of the term 'place of removal' under Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act in the context of export goods.3. Comparison of rulings related to the determination of place of removal for excisable goods destroyed in accidents.Analysis:Issue 1:The Commissioner rejected the appellant's application for revision of central excise duty under Rule 21 due to the destruction of granite slabs in an accident, leading to duty demand confirmation. The appellant argued for remission under Rule 21 if goods were destroyed due to an unavoidable accident before removal. The place of removal was crucial in this context, as per Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, which defines it as the premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after clearance from the factory.Issue 2:The appellant contended that for export goods, the place of removal is when export documents are presented to Customs, not the factory. This interpretation was supported by references to the Central Sales Tax Act and previous rulings. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the sale is completed upon presentation of export documents, not at the factory gate. The place of removal for export goods is where Customs documents are submitted, as per Section 5 of the Central Excise Act.Issue 3:The Tribunal disagreed with the Single Member Bench's ruling in a previous case, highlighting the failure to consider Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, and Section 5 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal clarified that when goods are destroyed after leaving the factory for export and before completion of the sale, they are not deemed removed from the factory gate. The decision in a similar case supported this interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the place of removal in determining duty liability.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders and providing consequential relief, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the place of removal for excisable goods destroyed in accidents during export processes.