TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant has filed remission application, which was rejected by the lower authority and Appeal No. E/1235/08 is an appeal against the said rejection. The ground of rejection was that such remission can be allowed in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, only if the goods have been destroyed "at the time before removal". He further pointed out that another reason of rejection was that the application for remission in respect of goods cleared prior to 25/26.7.2005, when flood took place, was filed on 21.4.2008 and as such there was delay in filing the application. Learned Counsel pointed out that another reason for rejection was that the Chapter 18 of the Miscellaneous Provisions in the Central Excise Manual prescribed procedure fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. - 2017 (349) ELT 442 (Guj) to assert that the procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Manual need to be followed. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the fact that the goods have been destroyed in the flood has not been disputed by either side. The only issue being raised is whether remission can be granted when goods are cleared for export from the factory and the same are destroyed before export. In this regard, the decision of Larger Bench of the tribunal in the case of Honest Vio-Bet Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 526 (Tri-LB) is relevant. Para 12 of the said decision summarize the findings and it reads as under: - "12. As goods in qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be rejected on the ground that the goods were destroyed after clearance from the factory in the circumstances when the goods were cleared for the purpose of export. 4.1 The appellants have further relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Chem & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2003 (158) ELT 327 (Tri-Kol) to assert that delay in giving intimation to department cannot be a ground for rejection of remission of duty. The impugned order does not identify in what manner the procedure prescribed in the Central Excise Manual has not been followed. To that extent, the said order is not speaking order. It has been argued that when the goods itself have been destroyed along with the records at the warehouse then what kind of evidence....