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>Appellant not liable for duty on destroyed goods; appeal based on Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules</h1> <h3>M/s. Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Rohtak </h3> M/s. Park Nonwoven Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Rohtak - 2014 (308) E.L.T. 431 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved: Whether the appellant is entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules for semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident.Analysis:1. Issue of Remission of Duty: The main issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to remission of duty for the semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire accident. The Commissioner denied the remission application stating that Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules is applicable only to finished excisable goods and not to semi-finished or work in process goods. However, it is noted that there is no dispute regarding the fire accident and destruction of the semi-finished goods. The Tribunal's decision in Urmi Chemicals Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III and Lakshmi Precision Tools Ltd. cases supports the position that duty liability does not arise for semi-finished goods that cannot be cleared or are in process.2. Appellant's Duty Liability: It is established that the appellant is not liable to pay duty on the semi-finished goods destroyed in the fire accident. The Commissioner did not confirm any duty against the appellant and simply rejected the remission application. As the semi-finished goods were not fully manufactured and no duty liability exists, the rejection of the remission application does not adversely affect the appellant. Therefore, the question of whether remission is required for semi-finished goods becomes irrelevant in this case.3. Conclusion: Considering that the appellant is not obligated to pay any duty on the destroyed semi-finished goods, the acceptance or rejection of the remission application is inconsequential. The appeal is disposed of based on the appellant's non-liability to pay duty on the semi-finished goods. The judgment clarifies the application of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules in cases involving destruction of goods in process and affirms the appellant's position regarding duty remission for semi-finished goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
