Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2014 (2) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt was to be transported to gateway for export to Saudi Arabia. The declared value of the consignment was Rs.66,99,375/- involving Excise duty of Rs.6,90,036/-. However, before the goods could move from ICD, Tughlakabad to gateway port for export out of India, there was fire accident in the warehouse at the ICD in which the goods were totally destroyed. The appellant submitted an application dated 7.5.2010 under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remission of duty in respect of the goods cleared for export which had been destroyed at the ICD before the same could reach the gateway port for export out of India. The Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12.1.2012 rejected the application for remission on the ground that while R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmachem P. Ltd. (Final Order No. A/1387-1393/2008-WZB/AHD dated 16.7.2008) wherein the Tribunal relied upon the Division Benchs judgment in case of Kuntal Granites Ltd. , that the term 'place of removal' has to be understood in terms of its definition as given in Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act and that since in respect of the goods exported out of India, the sale is completed only after their export out of India, the place of removal has to be treated as the port from where the goods were exported out of India and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri R.Puri, ld. D.R., defended the impugned order and reiterating the findings of the Commissioner pleaded that it is the factory which is the place of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing: According to the learned DR, from perusal of this Rule, it is clear that only when the loss or destruction of goods due to natural causes or unavoidable accident has taken place at any time before the removal, the remission of duty on the goods can be considered by the competent authority and the words 'at any time before removal' refer to the time of the loss or destruction of the goods being before the 'time of removal' wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the definition of 'time of removal' as given in Rule 4(3)(cc) which has to be adopted and according to which when the goods are not sold from the factory but are sold after clearance from the factory, from depot or other places, the time of removal would be time at which the goods are cleared from the factory. Thus in such cases, even if the place from where the goods are exported out of India is treated as 'place of removal', the 'time of removal' in term of definition of this term in section 4(3)(cc) would remain the time at which the goods are cleared from the factory. Moreover it is also doubtful as to whether the definition of 'place of removal' as given in section 4(3)(c) can be adopted for the purpose of Rule 21 of the Central Exci....