9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 48 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Inputs were destroyed in fire - Tribunal vide order no. A/203/2005/WZB/CII dated 3.3.2005 which was reported in (2005 -TMI - 53922 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) which alleged the claim of remission of duty on account of fire broken out in the factory of the appellants and the same has attained finality - Hence, the claim of remission of duty on account of fire has been allowed - Appeal is allowed with consequential relief in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on inputs destroyed in fire - Allegations of contravention of Central Excise Act, 1944 and rules - Recovery of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty - Claim of remission of duty on account of fire - Appeal against denial of remission - Sustainability of show-cause notice and order Analysis: The appellants appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on inputs destroyed in a fire incident. They were issued a show-cause notice alleging contravention of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rules for failing to pay appropriate excise duty on finished goods destroyed in the fire without payment of duty, leading to clearance without invoice and without determining the correct duty amount. The company also failed to apply for remission of duty on the destroyed goods. The Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty were demanded from the appellants for these contraventions. The advocate for the appellants argued that they had filed a claim for remission of duty due to the fire incident, which was denied based on late filing. However, the Tribunal had allowed the remission claim in a previous order, which had attained finality. Therefore, the advocate contended that the show-cause notice and demands were not sustainable. Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that the demands were confirmed based on the denial of remission, which had already been allowed by the Tribunal in a previous order. Consequently, the Tribunal found the show-cause notice and order unsustainable in the eyes of the law and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.
|
