9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be made by an assessee even while defending himself in the demand proceedings. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue. The reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant had not given the estimate of the goods lost in the fire cannot be equated with any suppression or mis-statement with malafide intention so as to justifiably invoke the larger period of limitation - demand beyond normal period not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/42130/2016 - 40693/2017 - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondents ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, MS sheets etc., from the said goods. Subsequently, appellants reversed the Cenvat credit availed in respect of various destroyed and damaged inputs and also cleared the salvaged scrap on payment of duty. As regards insurance claim, they submitted that the claim was settled by the Insurance Company without including the elements of excise duty. 3. However, subsequently a Show cause notice dated 01.08.2013 was issued to the appellant proposing to confirm the demand of duty of excise to the tune of ₹ 44,69,699/- on the finished goods destroyed in the fire, and in respect of which the appellants had received the insurance compensation. The notice also proposed confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. The same was contest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the goods. As regards limitation, he observed that the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were requiring the appellants to give details of the damaged goods, which they did not give and as such extended period would be applicable. 6.1 In the absence of any dispute to the destruction of the appellant's final products in the fire, which broke out in their factory, the denial of remission or the confirmation of the demand cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the appellants did not file a remission application. The said issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Punjab Chemicals Crop. Protection Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2014 (308) ELT 522 (Tri.-Del.). 6.2 After taking note of the precedent dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand cannot be upheld. 7. The ratio of the above decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Filing of a remission application is only a procedural aspect and the prayer to remit the duty can be made by an assessee even while defending himself in the demand proceedings. As such, the lower authorities were duty bound to consider the appellant's request for remission of duty, while contesting the Revenue's proposal to confirm the demand. In the absence of any dispute that there was damage and loss of the finished products or in the absence of any dispute of the fact that the appellants have paid back the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs and have paid duty in respect of salvaged waste and scrap, confirmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
