9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant on the goods lost in fire to protect the interest of Revenue. - applicant has not filed any appeal against the rejection of remission application but challenged the confirmation of demand, a fall out and mechanical implementation of the Order of rejection of the remission application. We find that the confirmation of demand on the goods destroyed by fire, resulted out of the rejection of their remission application. We are of the view that since the applicants have not preferred any appeal against the Order rejecting their remission application, the observation of the Commissioner on the submissions/evidences advanced by the applicants, during the said proceeding become final. - applicant could not be able to make out a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been adjudicated on 30-3-2012 by the Commissioner confirming the demands referring to and relying upon the order of rejection of their remission application. Against the said confirmation of demands, the applicant is in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Advocate submits that both the proceedings, that is recovery of duty and remission from payment of duty, are separate proceedings, therefore, each one has to be examined separately and cannot be considered as one, even though the confirmed demand and the remission amount are based on common cause of action and arising out of the same set of facts i.e. incident of fire as on 22-11-2009. The ld. Advocate further submits that the company, after the said incident of fire, had incurred heavy l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of duty on goods lost in fire. We find that the applicant has not filed any appeal against the rejection of remission application but challenged the confirmation of demand, a fall out and mechanical implementation of the Order of rejection of the remission application. We find that the confirmation of demand on the goods destroyed by fire, resulted out of the rejection of their remission application. We are of the view that since the applicants have not preferred any appeal against the Order rejecting their remission application, the observation of the Commissioner on the submissions/evidences advanced by the applicants, during the said proceeding become final. Thus, prima facie, we find force in the argument of the ld. AR that at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
