Whether considering remission application after applicant rectifying defects amounts to review of order?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2610

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD VERSUS VIDEOCON COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Citation:- 2014 (310) E.L.T. 392 (Tri. Mumbai)

Brief facts:-The brief facts of the case are that on 22-10-2003 fire took place in the factory of the respondent due to short circuit. The respondent filed a claim of remission of duty of the inputs which has gone in the manufacturing process lost in fire on 18-1-2004. The said claim was returned to the respondent on account of that the respondent has not given the supporting documents in support of their claim, specially the insurance cover and how much claim has been sanctioned by the insurance company. Later, on 28-5-2007, the respondent filed the claim for remission of duty with supporting documents. The said claim was entertained by the ld. Commissioner and after satisfying himself has allowed the claim of remission of duty of the inputs lost in fire which has gone in the manufacturing process.

Appellant’s Contentions:- The appellants contention in the case is against the order of ld. Commissioner which is based on two grounds:-
(a) the Commissioner has no power to review his own order.
(b) Remission claim of duty on inputs which has gone in the manufacturing process is required to be rejected.

Respondents Contention:-The respondents contention is in favor of the ld. Commissioner.

Reasoning of Judgment-Considering the fact that the initial refund claim was filed without documents, and same was returned on account of deficiency in documents. Later on after obtaining the insurance claim from the Insurance company, the respondent filed claim of remission of duty with supporting documents and to know how much amount of duty is required to be remitted. In these circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly entertained the claim of remission of duty and same shall not amount to review of his own order. Therefore, the ground that Commissioner has no power to review his own order is not sustainable. Further, it was find that this Tribunal in Urmi Chemicals v. CCE - 2014 (301)E.L.T.356 (Tri-Mumbai)has held that if inputs has gone in the manufacturing process which has been lost in fire/flood are entitled for remission of duty. Therefore, it was hold that the Commissioner has not committed any error in holding that the respondent are entitled for remission of duty on inputs gone in the manufacturing process which has been lost in fire.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that if the remission claim is filed without supporting documents and the same is entertained after the applicant rectifies the deficiencies, it shall not amount to review of order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue department was rejected because the grant of remission was held as proper.

Prepared by:- Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2610

Post a Comment

Query