9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case as stated by the original authority are as follows :- During the year December, 1996 due to heavy rains and floods, raw materials/finished products/work-in-progress have been lost in floods and M/s. MFPL have made insurance claim with M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against their policy. However, the occurrence of the loss was not intimated to the Central Excise Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the input credit but set aside the demand to the extent of Rs. 1,59,608/- proposed in the show-cause notice on the finished goods. The Department went in appeal against the dropping of the demand. The lower appellate authority allowed the Department s appeal on the ground that the original authority had exceeded the prescribed powers for grant of remission of duty and had usurped the powers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y order of remission, the original authority had no power to drop the demand of duty and therefore, the reversal of the said order by the lower appellate authority is in accordance with law. 5. After hearing both sides we find that the appellants have not applied for remission of duty for the finished goods claimed to have been destroyed by rain water and flood. Considering the amount involved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same does not get extinguished by a mere lapse of a particular period apart from the fact that no such period has been prescribed under Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It has been held there in that Section 11A and Rule 223A deal with different situations and the period of limitation provided under Section 11A is not applicable to the situation contemplated under Rule 223A. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
