Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and whether remission of duty could be claimed in respect of goods destroyed in fire under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis: The appeal arose from an application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant claimed that the imported and indigenous goods destroyed in fire were eligible for remission. The imported goods were held to present no prima facie impediment to seeking remission, but the applicability of Rule 21 to the procured goods was doubted because that rule applies to a manufacturer of excisable goods and the appellant was viewed as a buyer of goods rather than a producer. On that prima facie view, full waiver was not found justified.
Conclusion: Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined, and only partial relief was granted by directing deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, with the balance waived and recovery stayed on compliance.
Final Conclusion: The order granted only limited interim relief and left the appeal to proceed subject to compliance with the directed deposit.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 21 remission is confined to the statutory scope applicable to manufacturers of excisable goods, and where only a prima facie case is shown, the authority may grant only partial waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.