9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order denying remission set aside. - E/768/2008(BR)(SM) - 575/2010-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 30-4-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Saini, DR, for the Respondent. [Order] - The appellant has filed this appeal against the rejection of their claim for remission of duty on tableware/kitchenware which were damaged due to heavy rain. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of glass and glassware and were availing Cenvat credit on the input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The appellants filed a claim of remission of duty involved on damaged/broken tableware/kitchenware due to heavy rain on 6-9-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their RG-1 register and goods were not cleared, hence no question of duty liability arises but to reverse the RG-1 register, it requires remission permission. He further submitted that such heavy rain is beyond the control of the appellant. Hence the allegation against the appellant that they have not taken due precaution to safeguard their goods, is not sustainable. To support his contention he placed reliance on Sika Qualcrate Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata III - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.- Kolkata) wherein the appellant made a remission application on 19-12-2000 as the flood occurred on 23-9-2000. In that case, the Tribunal has held that "loss was not in dispute and non-recovery of duty from insurance company was also not in dispute. Remissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rifying the actual stocks with statutory record which found destroyed due to heavy rain. I do not find that he has filed his claim late. The .appellant has to claim insurance from the insurance company. It is also clear from the facts that the appellant has not claimed the duty part from the insurance company. From the records it is clear that the appellant has entered the finished goods in their RG-1 register but same were not cleared from their factory hence the question of payment of duty does not arise at all. It is not in dispute that the input were not used in the manufacture of finished goods, CENVAT credit is available to the appellant. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
