9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact of manufactures, besides a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under the provisions of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder. 2. Shri R. Gururajan, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue is with reference to the allegation of production and clearance of Cement clinkers clandestinely without payment of duty and in this regard show cause notice was issued by the Department on 11-12-1989. The learned Counsel submitted that the case of the appellant is that the entire clinker was washed away by floods due to natural cause and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to duty remission in terms of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was further submitted that claim was made befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urance Company is accepted as has been done in the impugned order. 3. [Heard] Shri R. Subramanian, the learned D.R. 4. We have elaborately heard the learned Counsel and gone through the evidence available on record and also considered the question of law as to the extent and scope of the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in regard to invoking the longer period of limitation, in the light of the evidence available on record. In the present case so far as the letter of the Insurance Company is concerned, assuming that the same was not brought to the notice of the appellant and the appellant was prejudiced by the same, we proceed to consider the issue de hors the same by excluding the consideration of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel at one stage was at pains to submit that there was omission of the allegation of suppression in the show cause notice and as such it would not ipso facto establish the charge against the appellant inasmuch as the main allegation was that the appellant had manufactured and cleared excisable goods with intention to evade payment of duty . We are not able to accede to this plea of the appellant because, admittedly no documents were produced to show that the goods were lost because of natural causes like floods. In view of the above, the inevitable logical conclusion is that clinkers wet cleared without pay of duty, In this view of the matter, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to claim dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the condition precedent for seeking remission of duty in terms of this rule is that the goods, should be shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or otherwise and the appellant was therefore, required to produce necessary evidence in support of their claim in this regard. The learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that apart from the main plea of floods, there was no other evidence produced in support of this. Any contemporaneous record in regard to floods having occurred at all in which 1500 M.T. of clinkers was lost have not been produced even before us. It is observed that whenever there is any loss or accident, the Central Excise authorities are required to be informed. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
