9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne ORDER P. C. 1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the CESTAT dated 12th January 2007 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Respondents arising out the adjudicating authority. 2. The facts in brief giving arise the present appeal thus: (a) The Appellant;s factories were flooded by water due to heavy rains and flood in Daman Ganga river in August 2007. After the flood water recede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. Despite the said letters/reminders, there was no response and as such the Appellant destroyed the said goods on 7th March 2005 after giving intimation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the Respondent has relied on the judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Godrej Food Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1995 (75) ELT 777 (M.P.) so also its own judgment in another case. 5. In the present case, undoubtedly after the goods became contaminated and though several reminders were sent to the department as aforesaid, the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
