TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Duty Demand After Flood Damage</h1> <h3>IN RE : PETROX CONTAINERS</h3> IN RE : PETROX CONTAINERS - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 949 (G. O. I.) Issues:1. Duty demand on finished goods and inputs due to floods damage.2. Validity of setting aside the demand on finished goods by Commissioner (Appeals).3. Requirement of remission application under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.4. Contestation of the direction to file remission application by the department.5. Consideration of loss of goods due to natural causes for remission of duty.6. Applicability of previous judgments on the case.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved a duty demand on finished goods and inputs of a company due to damages caused by floods. The original authority confirmed the duty demand, which was challenged by the respondent in appeal.Issue 2:The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on finished goods, stating that duty is leviable only upon removal of goods from the factory. The department contested this decision, arguing that the duty should be confirmed in the absence of a remission application.Issue 3:The requirement of a remission application under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was a crucial point of contention. The respondent argued that there was no stipulation for immediate filing of the application after goods damage, and the appeal should be rejected based on this ground.Issue 4:The department contested the direction to file a remission application, stating that it was an unhealthy practice to require it after exhausting all procedural formalities. They argued that the duty should be confirmed in the absence of such an application.Issue 5:The consideration of loss of goods due to natural causes for remission of duty was a key aspect. The Government observed that the damaged goods were still in the factory and could be inspected, indicating a genuine loss due to floods.Issue 6:The applicability of previous judgments, such as Mira Chemicals v. CCE, Grasim Industries v. CCE, and Voltamp Transformers Ltd. v. CCE, supported the view that in the absence of goods clearance from the factory, confirmation of duty demand was not justified.In conclusion, the Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand on finished goods and rejected the revision application, as the duty remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was deemed appropriate in the case of goods damaged by natural causes like floods.
TaxTMI 