9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of M/s Nutrine Confectionary Company Ltd (NCCL). The appellants are manufacturing and clearing goods on behalf of NCCL on payment of appropriate duties. During the intervening night of 24-03-2009 and 25-03-2009, a major fire accident took place in the premises and raw materials, packing materials and finished goods were destroyed. On 25-03-2009 itself, the appellant informed the incident to Range Superintendent. The goods destroyed pertained to job work goods of M/S Nutrine Confectionary Ltd (NCCL) for whom appellants were carrying out the job work. As per agreement between appellant and NCCL, the responsibility to pay excise duty and other taxes is on NCCL. Even the claim of insurance for goods destroyed was made by NCCL. The appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was given. The separate penalty imposed on the Chairman/ M.D of appellant was set aside. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri R.Muralidhar, argued on the ground of limitation. He submitted that as the goods were destroyed in fire they were entitled to remission of duty as per Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules. Appellants did not file any remission application. The insurance was claimed by NCCL. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to appellants invoking the extended period alleging suppression. The only allegation of suppression is that there was delay on the part of appellant to furnish details called for by the Range Superintendent. Though the appellant had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty being clear, the show cause notice issued invoking extended period is legal and proper. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully. It is not disputed that the goods were destroyed in fire. The appellants have immediately reported the incident to Range Superintendent and FIR was also registered. The appellants being job workers, the claim for insurance was made by NCCL. It is apparent that the appellants did not possess the requisite information called for by the department. For the same reason they could not file reply to the show cause notice. Even if they submitted any reply, they could only ask for further time to furnish details. In spite of their best efforts they could not get the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
