9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itnesses produced by the prosecution did not support their case and there was no other evidence. This shows that police also felt that accident was avoidable. The fact that police prosecuted three persons would show that police treated the fire as not at all an accident which is much more serious than the accident being avoidable or happened because of negligence. The circumstances are peculiar in this case wherein police and fire department both have entertained the same views as the Commissioner. In fact their views are more disadvantageous than the view of the Commissioner. Hence, find that the rejection of the application for remission cannot be found fault with. Under these circumstances the appeal has no merits and is rejected. - E/5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kgs and NIL respectively. During the verification of stock on 29-6-2006, the assessee have not intimated about the loss of Acetone in fire accident whereas the assessee have claimed remission of duty on 7000 Kgs Acetone vide their application cited. There is a difference in estimated loss of stock furnished in the remission application with that of the ER1 return filed by the assessee. The assessee have not reflected the value of the destroyed goods in the fire accident in the monthly ER1 return. Hence the value of the destroyed goods have been arrived basing on the clearance made during the month of April 2006 and the particulars are given below : Sl. No. Product As per remission appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and civil works does not arise, as no duty is payable on them. After hearing the appellant the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim for remission. 3. The learned consultant submits that no accident can be considered as unavoidable. According to him all accidents are avoidable. Unfortunately I am unable to subscribe to this view since the legislature thinks otherwise. 4. The next submission is that the appellant had taken precautions and therefore the remission should have been given. On going through the impugned order it is seen that in the order-in-original in paragraph 5 (numbered as 6 in the order-in-original) the Commissioner had made the following observation: As per the FIR filed with Sadasivpet Police S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
