Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (6) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant indicated the closing stock of the sponge iron as on the date of the arson taken place. In my considered view, if the lower authorities are accepting the closing stock on a particular date when the factory is functioning, I do not find any reason to not to accept the closing stock mentioned in the books on the date when the arson took place. Reliance placed in the case of YASH PAPERS LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD [2001 (11) TMI 852 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that even if there is a difference in quantity between the remission application and insurance claim, remission application should be granted for the quantities sought for which remission is sought. The rejection of the remissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gible for insurance claim; and remission of the duty can be given only to such quantity of 344.25 MTs of sponge iron. It is the claim of the appellant that on 17/12/2011, they had a closing balance of 1026.360 MTs of sponge iron, out of which, they cleared 226.36 MTs of sponge iron on payment of appropriate duties. Hence they should get remission of 800 MTs which was destroyed during the fire incident. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, rejected the claim for the remission of the duty on 800 MTs of the sponge iron but allowed remission of duty on 344.25 MTs. 3. Learned consultant submits that lower authorities have erred in holding that the remission of Central Excise duty on 455.75 MTs of sponge iron (8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... timation to the Department immediately and filed the intimation to the Department after 20 days of the incidence occurred and there is no corroborative evidence as to show that the damage to the finished goods was to the quantity as has been claimed. It is also his further submission that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in his verification report specifically states that the assesses though claimed loss of 800 MTs of sponge iron lumps, Insurance Surveyor has granted only benefit to 344.25 MTs and the remission can be granted to the quantity of 344.25 MTs of sponge iron lost . 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the impugned order not accepting the remission claim filed by the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he judgment, which I reproduce below:- 5 . I have considered the submissions. On examination of the impugned order, I observe that there is no finding that the aforesaid quantity of 71,341.200 Kgs. of kraft paper were not burnt to ashes in the fire accident under reference. On the other hand, ld. Commissioner has observed that the appellants ought to have claimed remission on 71,341.200 Kgs. of kraft paper instead of the larger quantity of paper damaged/burnt in the fire. The appellants have today restricted their claim for remission to the said quantity of 71,341.200 Kgs. of kraft paper burnt to ashes. There is no finding in the impugned order in support of rejection of this claim. I have come across a vague averment in the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r cleared for home consumption, the same was done under proper invoices issued under Rule 52A, copies whereof are also available on record. RG-I register was also maintained by the party. An extract of the register is also available on record. All these documents were produced before the adjudicating authority, but did not receive due attention of that authority. All these facts and circumstances would constitute a glaring case of non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. Having examined all the evidence on record, I find that the appellants have satisfied the requirements of Rule 49 for grant of remission of duty and they will be eligible for remission of duty to the extent of ₹ 85,498/- on the quantity of 71,341.200 Kgs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates