9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were destroyed only after giving intimation to the department. The department woke up after the goods were destroyed and issued a notice to the Respondent to remain present for hearing on his application for remission and after that the said application was rejected on the ground that the goods were destroyed in the absence of the officer/representative of the department. The Chapter 18 of the Excise Manual provides for a time-bound programme in which the officer of the department is expected to act in such matters. Undoubtedly, in the present case the department has not acted in the time-bound programme. - The department cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 138 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Superintendent of Central Excise dated 18.2.2005. (c) Subsequently, the Appellant was called for hearing on the application of the applicant for remission on duty. The Application of the assessee came to be rejected on the ground that the goods were destroyed in the absence of the officer of the Central Excise Department. (d) Being aggrieved thereby an appeal came to be preferred before the learned CESTAT and the said appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 3. Shri Oak, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant- Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal. The learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted in the time-bound programme. 6. The department cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Having not responded to the Application of the assessee for a period between August 2004 till March 2005 though the assessee informed the department that the goods were unfit for human consumption the department cannot be heard to say that respondent is not entitled to remission since goods were destroyed in the absence of representative of department. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the procedure adopted by the department cannot be said to be just and fair. 7. We do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and as such the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
