Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Vs Sarvopari Impex Pvt Ltd (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Sarvopari Impex Pvt Ltd, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision to grant remission of CENVAT duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The revenue argued that the respondent failed to provide adequate evidence, such as a survey report or details of the destroyed stock, to justify the remission claim after a fire incident. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the remission claim, but the CESTAT later overturned this decision, finding the respondent’s claims credible, based on the available evidence, including certification from the Fire Service Department. The High Court upheld CESTAT’s judgment, noting that the revenue could not dispute the details provided by the respondent, which formed the basis of the show-cause notice. The Court concluded that no substantial questions of law were raised, thus dismissing the appeal and the accompanying stay application.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
We have heard learned Counsel on either sides.
This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Excise Appeal No. 75332 of 2017. The revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of law for consideration :-
a. Whether the respondent is eligible for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 when the respondent failed to establish the quantity of stock of raw materials and plant and machinery which were destroyed in fire ?
b. Whether the learned Tribunal being the ultimate fact finding authority ought to have appreciated that the adjudicating authority has erred in his decision by allowing the benefit of remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in absence of supporting documents i.e. NOC from the Fire Department, survey report and documents regarding procurement of raw materials etc.?
The appellant department issued show-cause notice to the respondent proposing to reject the claim for remission of CENVAT duty and demanding the same under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 apart from proposing to levy interest and impose penalty. It appears that the show cause notice came to be adjudicated without opportunity to the respondent and an order was passed on 28.03.2012 rejecting the remission application.
