Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Sabero Oganics Gujarat Limited

(Arising out of OIA-KRS/14/VAPI/2008 dated 24.01.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Vapi)

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Sabero Oganics Gujarat Limited : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Revenue (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : None.

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

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?

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, Honble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 29.05.2015

ORDER No. A/10724 / 2015 Dated 29.05.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

None appears on behalf of the Respondent.

2. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter 28, 29 and 38 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There was a fire in the Respondents factory and the goods were destroyed therein. The respondent filed application for remission of duty under the provisions of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was ultimately allowed by the Tribunal. The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 16.02.2015 in Tax appeal No. 492 of 2008 (Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited), answered the reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

3. Consequent to the remission application, the jurisdictional Central Excise officer raised the demand of duty on the goods destroyed in the fire. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the demand of duty following the Tribunal order. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Tribunal allowed the remission application which is further upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. So, the demand of duty can not survive. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL

3