9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production et cetera - the revenue had some information about disturbance by storm in the appellant's unit, resulting into disruption of production et cetera - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Ex. Appeal No. 50269/15 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Shambhu Chopra, Adv. for the Appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The Appellant, M/s Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd., is in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/142/14 dated 25/07/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs S.Tax, Kanpur. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of bonded sheet and form sheets falling un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir letter dated 30/01/13, informing the loss suffered by them, due to the storm which occurred on 17/4/11. It appears that an SCN dated 6/6/12 was issued requiring the appellant to discharge the tax liability on the stock of finished goods and raw materials as well as work in progress, which SCN was returned undelivered, with the postal mark that the appellant firm does not exist at the address. It further appears that the request for surrender, was rejected by the Supt Central Excise with the remark, that as the appellant have not paid the tax demanded on the finished goods and raw materials, their request for surrender cannot be accepted, vide letter dated 24/1/13. In response to the letter dated 30/1/13 of the appellant, giving informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acilitate verification of the claim and in view of the fact that non-payment of duty could be known by the revenue, since April 2011, only on submission of surrender application, that is in August 2012. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order have upheld the rejection of the claim, rejecting the appeal, observing that there is lack of sufficient evidence and the evidence produced in the shape of photographs, cannot be considered. The appellant have been negligent as they filed the claim after much delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that due to total destruction of the factory and the stock, due to which the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) ENT 510 (A.P.) wherein the High Court had upheld the rejection of claim holding that assessee is not entitled to remission of duty for destruction of stocks for which neither intimation was given nor analytical report produced by them before the authority. 7. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the revenue have not disputed the event of storm on 17/4/11. Secondly, the loss by storm have been surveyed by National Insurance Company through their surveyors and thus the details of loss have been verified and are unavailable on record. Further the balance sheets and also the accounting records are available with the appellant. In this view of the matter, I hold that the remission claim under Rule 21 cannot be rejected only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
