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>Tribunal Decision Upheld: No Duty Recovery for Goods Destroyed by Fire at Export Unit</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus SAMI LABS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus SAMI LABS LTD. - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 601 (Kar.) Issues:Interpretation of Explanation to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 regarding destruction of goods during handling and storage in manufacturing premises.Detailed Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the revenue against a Tribunal order that raw materials/capital goods used in production and destroyed due to fire accident were not subject to duty recovery under Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Rule 6 did not apply in this case, leading to the revenue's appeal.The assessee, an Export Oriented Unit, faced a fire accident resulting in the loss of goods. The revenue sought to recover duty foregone on imported raw materials/capital goods. The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that the destroyed goods were not used for the intended purpose and hence not subject to duty recovery under Rule 6.The substantial questions of law considered included whether the Explanation to Rule 6 applied to the case, the treatment of goods as work-in-progress, and the scope of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The revenue contended that the goods' destruction due to natural causes during handling triggered the Explanation to Rule 6.The Explanation to Rule 6 clarified that goods lost or destroyed during transport or handling in manufacturing premises are deemed unused for the intended purpose. The Tribunal's conclusion was that duty recovery was not warranted for goods destroyed by unavoidable accidents/natural causes, as they were not used for the intended purpose, in line with Rule 6.The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that the goods destroyed by fire accident were not subject to duty recovery under Rule 6. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that the goods fell under the Explanation due to destruction during handling, emphasizing that the Explanation did not apply in this scenario.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no error in its reasoning. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue. The Court affirmed that the Explanation to Rule 6 was not applicable in the case of destroyed goods due to unavoidable accidents.
TaxTMI 