M\/s. Indigra Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1295 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-2-2019
Appeal Nos. E\/40445 & 40446\/2016 – Final Order Nos. 40334-40335\/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellant is an 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of granite slabs. They cleared quantity of 354 Nos. of granite slabs measuring 1230.840 square meter for export in 5 containers under ARE-1 dated 27.11.2007. Out of the 5 containers, the goods contained in 4 containers were duly exported under Shipping Bill dated 28.12.2007 except for a quantity of 48 granite slabs measuring 286.840 square meters. The said container which contained 48 granite slabs were returned to the factory in a ful<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ing that there is no provision for remission of duty once the goods have been cleared from the factory. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide orders impugned herein upheld the same. Hence these appeals. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d both sides. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Indigra Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise SalemCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 1295 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-2-2019Appeal Nos. E\/40445 & 40446\/2016 – Final Order Nos. 40334-40335\/2019Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant … Continue reading “M\/s. Indigra Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16949"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16949\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. S. Sridevi submitted that in the instant case, the appellant had cleared the goods under bond for export and only because the vehicle carrying the goods met with an accident the goods got damaged and were brought back into EOU. The goods were never cleared in DTA and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay duty. She submitted that the authorities below have relied upon the decision in Hind Nippon Rural Indus (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2004 (167) ELT 414 (Tri. Bang.) to confirm the duty. However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (310) ELT 526 (LB) has dealt with the issue as to whether remission of duty is allowable whe<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The issue is with regard to the demand of duty for the goods that have been damaged enroute and in transit while they were taken out for export. The Tribunal in the case of Tab India Granites (P) Ltd. (supra) had occasion to consider the very same issue and followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Honest Bio Vet Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and set aside the demand. The relevant portion is reproduced under:-
\n“5. It is not disputed that the goods cleared under bond for export were damaged in an accident. The appellant being an EOU is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 24\/2003 dated 31.03.2003, and that the goods have not been cleared in DTA. In the present case, the goods cleared for export got damaged in an accident and it cannot be said that the goods have been cleared in DTA. Further, the Larger Bench decision in the case of Honest Bio-Vet Pvt. Lt. (supra) has held that remission of duty is allowable when goods cleared from the factor<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n