9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than the limit of 0.5% prescribed by the Board vide Circular No.1D/3/70-CX.8 dated 08.09.1971 - Held that:- It is found that department has not challenged the aspect that the appellants are regularly showing the quantum of loss due to breakage etc. in their periodical return filed by them. Nothing prevented the department to carry out the physical verification and it is not the case of the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m March 2002 to December, 2005 was rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water under chapter 22 of C.E.T.A., 1985. During the manufacturing process and handling of aerated waters certain breakages and other losses of bottles occur. The appellant applies for remission of duty for the breakage and such losses. The Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is that this Tribunal have been taking consistent view regarding the allowances of remission of duty in view of the limit prescribed by the Board by the Circular dated 08.09.1971. He placed reliance on the Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2010 (261) ELT 567(Tri.-Del.), 2006 (201) ELT 69(Tri.-Del.) and this Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2009 (245) ELT 167 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be done, the benefit arising out of the Board s circular could not be extended. In view of the above discussion and findings, I hold that the claims for remission are unacceptable and accordingly I reject all the applications for remission filed during the period from March 2002 to December 2005. 6. We find that the department has not challenged the aspect that the appellants are regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
