9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emission of duty. Undisputedly the application for remission of duty is not yet decided, hence, case is remanded to lower adjudicating authority to decide the issue after the disposal of the application for remission. Since case pertains to year 1986-87, Commissioner is directed to dispose of remission application within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and lower adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different jute products falling under chapter 53, 56, 59 and 63 of C.E.T.A., 1985. From the audited account of appellant for the year 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 it was found that the appellants have claimed an insurance loss of Rs.20,86,020/- on goods, semi-finished goods and waste and combined due to fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the insurance company also as no duty was applicable on these goods. The contention is that they have not recorded these goods in the RG-1 stage, since they were not finished goods. The contention is that however, they have filed application for remission of duty in respect of the goods destructed due to fire vide their application dated 22.05.2007. 5. The contention of ld.A.R. is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1986-87 therefore it should be decided expeditiously. In these circumstances we direct the Commissioner to dispose of remission application within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order and lower adjudicating authority should decide the demand cum Show Cause Notice within 1(one) month from the date of disposal of the remission application. Appeal disposed of as above. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
