9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t damaged. Appellant filed the claim before the insurance company for damaged goods and received the compensation. The appellant cleared these damaged goods on payment of appropriate duty. Revenue is of the view that as the appellant has received compensation for damages on the goods from insurance company and same form a part of the value of the goods. Therefore, they are required to pay duty on this compensation. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and demand was confirmed. Matter came to this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order after considering the order of this Tribunal wherein the following directions were given to the Adjudicating Authority: "In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of September 2005. All these three invoices bear the description of the goods as "O/G" Sponge Iron", the full form of it is "Off Grade Sponge Iron". 4. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority demanded duty on the insurance claim which are challenged by the Ld. Commissioner (A) and also confirmed the order of adjudication. Therefore, appellant is before me. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the Central Excise Law to demand duty on insurance claim. To support this contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ratnatraya Heat Exchangers Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai-2011 (269) ELT 419 (Tri-Mum) , in the case of Jai Bhavani SSK Ltd. Vs. CCE Aurangabad-2008 (222) ELT 370 (Tri-Del) to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of losses in the monthly returns of impugned period which is mandatory as per the Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. If they were actually suffered from loss of Sponge Iron due to heavy rain or wind then they would have been applied for remission of duty as per provision laid under the Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. But in the instant case they failed to do. Appellant has not produced any documentary evidences to substantiate their claim neither before me nor before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus I do not find infirmity in the order in original." 7. He further submits that the appellant has not produced the evidence before the Ld. Commissioner (A) regarding the clearance of damaged goods. 8. Heard the parties. Considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
