2008 (10) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent. [Order]. The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of application for of remission of duty amounting to Rs. 52,615/- involved in 619 bags of sugar. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for remission of duty on the ground that the contention of appellant that they informed th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich was finally informed to the central excise officers in their application. Ld. Advocate relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) M/s. Gangeshwar Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 654 (T-D) (2) M/s. Shiva Essential Oils Chemicals v. CCE, Noida - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 121 (Tribunal-Delhi) (3) U.P. State Sugar Coproration Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 280 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra) held that no accident can be attributed to anybody s carelessness. So, the finding of the Commissioner on this issue, is not justified. Regarding the furnishing of the information about the accident to the Range Superintendent beyond the 24 hours, I find that the central excise officers verified the appellant s factory upon inform .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X