9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants are in appeal against rejection of the application for remission of duty and also against imposition of penalty and interest on duty on such goods which were destroyed. The appellants had filed an application for remission of central excise duty on 27.07.2005. Revenue sent a team to the premises of the appellants on the next day. However, due to the fact that flood water at the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants under protest towards the value of Rs. 41,96,901 of the damaged goods. The said demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and also by the first appellate authority. The penalty imposed was however reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 40,000/- as against equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loods, they failed to give evidence regarding the goods damaged. There was no delay on the part of the revenue to send team for verification. As soon's they filed application the very next day revenue sent a team for verification but by then they had destroyed the evidence of damage. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the fact that there was flood is not disputed. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would also include the goods which could not be accounted for various reasons. In these circumstances, no option but to rely on the estimate given by the insurance company. The appellants would be entitled to the remission of the quantum estimated by the insurance company and for the balance they would be required to pay the duty. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
