9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led 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. The matter was carried by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who set-aside the charge of clandestine removal of the goods on the shortage found by the department during their visit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 Rs. 10,30,874/-. Revenue alleged that there was shortage of goods which has been cleared clandestinely. In fact, the said allegation was set-aside by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the claim of the appellant is that the shortages are on account of goods lost in flood. As there is no contrary evidence p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Insurance claim of goods lost in flood, with cost. Admittedly, the goods lying in the factory premises has not suffered duty at that time as the duty is payable at the time of clearance of the goods. In that circumstance, it is obvious that the goods which ly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
