9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice even though the fact of the fire having occurred in their factory and having destroyed the final product was brought to the notice of the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Daman Vs. Mayank Electro Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 645 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] has observed that the fire accident having brought to the notice of the Revenue, there could be no ground for any suppression, fraud or mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.5.2008, Revenue was also informed about the fact of the fire. Subsequently, the Survey Report from the insurance company showing the loss of ₹ 2.27 crores approximately was also procured by the Revenue and on that basis show cause notice dated 3.2.2012 was issued raising demand of duty to the tune of ₹ 33,02,559/-. The notice alleged two grounds for proposing confirmation of the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot under doubt. In any case, he submits that subsequent to the issuance of the show cause notice they had also filed a remission application. He clarifies that there is no time limit for filing of remission application in terms of Rule 21 and it has been held by the Tribunal in a number of decisions that non-filing of remission application cannot result in confirmation of demand of duty in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.5.2008, which stands admitted in the show cause notice itself. Though, I agree with the ld. Advocate that the fact of non-filing of remission application in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules cannot result in the Revenue s demand of duty on the final product, which are not cleared from the factory, I proposed to dispose of the appeal on the point of limitation itself. 5. The Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
