M/S Indo Amines Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal3 August 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. E/1029/10

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where goods are destroyed by a natural disaster and the assessee, though entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21, instead pays the duty on the damaged finished goods together with interest and reverses the CENVAT credit availed on the raw materials, with no allegation of clandestine removal, no penalty under Section 11AC is attracted, and the penalty so imposed is liable to be set aside.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. E/1029/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VSK/38/Th-I/2010 dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

M/s Indo Amines Ltd.

: Appellant Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I : Respondent

Appearance Shri Vinay Ansurkar, Advocate : For Appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 03.08.2015 Date of Decision: 03.08.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

Heard both sides.

2. I find that there is no allegation of any clandestine removal of goods. It is an admitted fact that goods including finished goods were damaged in natural disaster (heavy rain-flooding) on 26.07.2005. Further fact on record is that the appellant, although was entitled to remission under Rule 21, did not claim and paid the duty on damaged finished goods, with interest. Also CENVAT credit availed on raw materials was reversed, thus no case for penalty under Section 11AC is made out. Appeal is allowed and penalty under Section 11AC is set aside.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

2 Appeal No. E/1029/10

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free