Alps Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[ Arising out of Letter F.No.IV/16-274/MP/2004-REM dtd 28.3.2007, issued by Assistant Commissioner (Tech) Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I ]

Alps Chemicals Pvt Ltd - Appellant(s)

Vs

Commissioner of Central Excise-

AHMEDABAD-I - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 13.04.2015

ORDER No. A/10760 / 2015 dtd 13/4/2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Dyes and Dyes Intermediaries classifiable under chapter 32 and 29 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. There was a fire accident at the appellants factory on 22.11.2003. The appellant informed the respondent on 24.11.2003, the Range Officers visited the factory and prepared Panchnama. The Appellant filed application dt.22.11.2004 for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. By the communication dtd 28.3.2007, the Asstt. Commissioner informed that the Commissioner directed to inform that the goods are not manufactured (final product) and also not entered in RG-1 register. Moreover, the cause of fire was not known, as per provision Rule 21 of Central Excise Rule 2002, the case is not fit for remission. The appellant filed this appeal against the communication dtd 28.3.2007.

2. The learned Advocate submits that by show cause notice dtd 5.11.2004, the Jt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-1 proposed demand of duty on the goods destroyed in fire on 22.11.2003. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest by adjudication order No.53/Jt.Commnr/2007 dtd 29.3.2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) by OIA No 284/2007 (Ahd-I) dtd 26.6.2007 set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal against the said order. By Final Order No. A/1288/WZB/AHD/2008 dtd 27.6.2008. The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that consequential demand of duty, against the remission application was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal by Final Order dtd 27.6.2008 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. We find that the demand of duty on the goods destroyed by fire on 22.11.2003 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of application for remission of duty has no consequence as the demand of duty thereon, has already been set aside.

3. In view to the above discussion we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami ??

??

??

??

2