9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed by the department against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the confirmation of duty, interest and the penalties imposed. 2. The respondents are manufacturers of bulk drugs and intermediaries. They are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. On 29.04.2006 a fire accident took place in the factory of the respondents resulting in loss of finished products, in process materials and also damage to capital goods. The respondents filed an appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. The issue whether respondent is eligible for remission has attained finality. That therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confirmed the demand of duty. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent though notice was issued. The appeal being of the year 2009 is taken up for disposal after hearing the AR and perusal of records. 5. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand solely on the ground that the appeal against the rejection of remission of duty is pending before the CESTAT, Bangalore and also that the recovery is stayed by the Tribunal. The litigation in respect of the rejection of remission of duty has attained finality. The said judgment passed by the Tribunal is reported in Ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch accidents take place and come to a conclusion. Therefore the order of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 19-5-2006 is important. Further on going through the records it is also found that the police went ahead with prosecution of three persons which finally ended in the acquittal of the persons since the witnesses 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 fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
