9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected. Rejection on the ground that Non-filing of quantification of shortages of goods lost in flood - Held that: - As there is no contrary evidence produced by the Revenue to show that the shortage are not on account of goods lost in flood. In that circumstance, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant by holding that there was a shortage of goods lost in flood involving duty of ₹ 10,30,874/- - rejection not valid. Rejection on the ground of Withdrawal of claim of remission by the appellant - Held that: - In the absence of any evidence on record that remission claim filed by the appellant on 04.08.2004 has been withdrawn, merely on the basis of intent, it cannot be said that appellant has withdrawn the remission clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat on 03.08.2004, due to heavy rain flood occurred in the factory premises and the appellant intimated the same to the department on 04.08.2004 by way of a letter dated 04.08.2004 wherein they filed application for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On 05.08.2005, stock taking was conducted and certain shortages were detected. Instead of entertaining the claim of remission of duty, it was alleged that appellant has clandestinely removed the goods. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to demand duty on the shortage detected on 05.08.2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated and demand of duty along with interest was confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the letter is an application for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As there is no prescribed proforma for filing application for remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the letter dated 04.08.2004 is an application for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Rules. Therefore, on that ground remission claim cannot be rejected. (b) Non-filing of quantification of shortages of goods lost in flood. I find that on 05.08.2004, a team of departmental officers visited the factory premises and stock taking was done physically, and it was found that the goods which were found short, the duty involved is ₹ 10,30,874/-. Revenue alleged that there was shortage of goods which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is that there were heavy rains on 2/3.08.2004. There was water logging of about 4 to 5 feet in their factory. Although everybody protects their goods from rain but when there was water logging of 4 to 5 feet, in that circumstances, it cannot be alleged that appellant was not diligent in storing the goods. Therefore, the said allegation for denial of remission claim is vague and baseless. Accordingly, remission claim cannot be rejected on this ground. (e) Whether the Insurance claim includes the excise duty or not. I find that initially on the basis of surveyor report the claim of insurance was rejected by the Insurance Company but when the matter brought to the Consumer Court, the Consumer Court has allowed the Insur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
