9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent they have already suffered huge loss because of natural disaster therefore it will be very unfair to ask for penalty on the respondent. In view of my above discussion, I am of the view that the orders of the Ld. Commissioner’s (Appeals) are just and legal and I do not fine any infirmity therein. I therefore uphold the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL NO. E/788/10, E/789/10 & E/CO/22/10 - Final Order Nos. A/2468-2470/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 2-6-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri. Sachin Chitnis, Advocate ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair These two appeals of the Revenue d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder only in respect of penalty and according to the impugned order he dropped the penalty on the ground that adjudicating authority has failed to provide any evidence that inputs were clandestinely removed, when the fact that loss on account of natural disaster which is not disputed. Aggrieved by the said impugned order the Revenue is before me only for imposition of penalty. 4. Shri Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that respondent has not informed the department regarding the loss due to the flood and they have suo moto cleared the damaged input as scrap. In view of this fact penalty is rightly imposable and the adjudicating authority is correct in imposition of penalty. Shri. Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: 10. I have gone through the facts of the case including the oral and written submissions made by the appellant. I find that this is a case where finished goods were destroyed/damaged by the floods. Some of the damaged finished goods were defaced and cleared as scrap on payment of duty. I find that the appellants had applied for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules which was rejected and clarified that the matter was pending in appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excises Rules, 20002, the powers of remission are vested with the Commissioner and it would therefore would not be appropriate for me to pronounce a decision, especially as the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
