2016 (11) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed against OIO No.1/REMISSION/COMMR-I/2009-10, dt.18.02.2010, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vadodara-I. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical products.  The Appellants had cleared the finished excisable goods involving total Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,59,176/- to M/s Biocon Ltd, Bangalore, SEZ Unit again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....removal'.  In the present case, since the goods had already left the factory of the Appellant, but did not reach the destination and destroyed in transit, therefore, remission of duty cannot be allowed. Consequently, he rejected their application.  Hence, the present appeal.  4.  The learned advocate for the Appellant submits that where the goods are cleared for  export....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords.  I find that there is no dispute on the fact that the Appellants had cleared 884.55 Kgs of LOVASTATIN USP, classifiable under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, following export/ARE1 procedure, without payment of duty, to one M/s Biocon Bangalore, an SEZ unit.  Also, it is not in dispute that the entire quantity of goods transported through truck destroyed as a result o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Bond which were destroyed before the same could be exported, can be treated as having been destroyed before removal only.  This would be the fair interpretation of the Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Thus, primary condition of eligibility of Remission of duty on the destroyed goods is fulfilled as required under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002.  Appellant is eligibl....