Tribunal rules in favor of manufacturer on duty demand for lost goods

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, in an appeal against duty demand on semi-finished goods destroyed in floods. Despite authorities demanding duty payment, the Tribunal held that duty on the lost semi-finished goods is not payable as they cannot be cleared from the factory. Citing precedents and emphasizing that duty on excisable goods is payable only at the time of clearance, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand on semi-finished goods destroyed in floods.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, faced the issue of duty demand on semi-finished goods destroyed in floods. Despite receiving insurance claims, the authorities demanded duty payment on the destroyed goods. The appellant had already reversed Cenvat credit on inputs contained in the destroyed goods, but the authorities insisted on duty payment.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that no finished goods were available at the time of the flood, only inputs and semi-finished goods were destroyed. They contended that since semi-finished goods cannot be cleared from the factory, duty demand is not justified. The appellant cited precedents like Biopac India Corpn. Ltd., CCE v. Beardsell Ltd., and Elam Pharma Pvt. Ltd. to support their position.

On the other hand, the respondent reiterated the duty demand, emphasizing that duty on the lost semi-finished goods should be payable. The appellant's position was that duty on excisable goods is payable only at the time of clearance, and since semi-finished goods cannot be cleared, duty is not applicable.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides, concluded that duty on semi-finished goods lost in the flood is not payable by the appellants. Referring to the decision in Lakshmi Precision Tools Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that duty payment is not sustainable when stock in progress is damaged due to unforeseen circumstances. The Tribunal also highlighted that the issue of reversing credit arises only when the final product is destroyed, not in the case of semi-finished goods lost in a flood. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---