Remission of duty for fire-destroyed finished goods upheld despite delayed application and Cenvat credit objection

Delay of 40 days in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation of consultant-related delay and illness was supported by the record and was not disputed on facts. Remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in fire was also allowed, as delay in filing the remission application was held not to be a valid standalone ground for rejection where the loss was undisputed. The objection based on non-reversal of Cenvat credit was rejected in light of Tribunal precedent and the Board circular, and remission was granted on the destroyed finished goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether remission of duty was admissible in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire, notwithstanding delay in filing the remission application and the objection regarding reversal of Cenvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the appellant as having occurred because the first consultant did not prepare the appeal in time and the second consultant, though he prepared it, could not hand over the appeal because of illness. The explanation was supported by the written application and was not disputed on facts.

Conclusion: The delay of 40 days was rightly condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether remission of duty was admissible in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire, notwithstanding delay in filing the remission application and the objection regarding reversal of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The refusal of remission on the ground of delay in making the application was found unsustainable in view of prior Tribunal decisions holding that such delay is not, by itself, a ground to deny remission when the loss is otherwise undisputed. The objection based on non-reversal of Cenvat credit was also rejected, as the later Tribunal ruling had considered the Board circular and had nevertheless held that remission could not be denied on that basis. On the facts, the claim was confined to remission on the finished goods destroyed, and the duty amount was accepted as Rs. 1,11,862.

Conclusion: Remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in fire was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained remission relief for the duty attributable to the destroyed finished goods, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing a remission application does not, by itself, justify rejection where the loss of goods is undisputed, and remission cannot be denied merely on the basis of a Board circular when binding Tribunal precedent has already addressed the issue.

---