2009 (4) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Chennai: Remission allowed for stolen goods in export transport. Revenue appeal dismissed.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee, ruling that remission could not be ... Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on face of record The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, in the case of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri P. Karthikeyan, JJ., heard an appeal brought by the Revenue against a decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recovery of duty on goods lost due to theft during transport for export. The Assistant Commissioner had initially confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later vacated the demand and set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Revenue, after initially appealing to the Tribunal, later filed a revision application on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter. The Tribunal, in its Final Order No. 1088/2008, dated 25-9-2008, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing that remission could not be denied when goods were lost due to theft. The Revenue subsequently filed an application for rectification of mistake, seeking to set aside the duty demand. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concluded that the issue at hand was the recovery of duty on goods lost due to theft during transit. It was determined that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider and decide the appeal, as the case did not pertain to remission of duty but rather to the recovery of duty on goods not exported despite being cleared for export. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake, finding no error in its Final Order. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.