9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the adjudication order demanding duty from the respondent on account of the goods lost in fire during the pendency the claim of remission of duty. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent intimated to the department on 25.08.2007 that the fire has broken out at their factory premised and caused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods have been held as claim of remission of duty has not been finalized. In that circumstance, the respondent is liable to pay duty on finished goods destroyed in fire. Consequently, the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (A) who set aside the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2012 the order was passed by Ld. Commissioner (A) much earlier, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (A). 5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 6. On hearing both the sides, I find that in this case the claim of the Revenue is that they have conveyed the order of rejection of claim of remission of duty on 04.12.2012 and claim of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order of demanding duty from the respondent is pre mature. 7. Further, as it is facts on record that there is no intimation order of rejection of claim of remission of duty was sent till 11.12.02012 either to the respondent or to the Ld. Commissioner (A), therefore, the appeal was not in required to be filed by the revenue before this Tribunal and the ground taken by the Revenue in their appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
