9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 18.30 hrs. The said fire has resulted in loss/damages of finished/semi finished goods, raw material/input etc. The appellant filed an FIR with the Taluka Police Station, Vadodara on 16.03.2012 and consequently, the police panchnama was drawn on 17.03.2012. Also, they have intimated the FIRE Department about the accident of fire. The appellants thereafter filed insurance claim with the insurance company on 02.05.2012. The intimation of fire accident was submitted to the department on 20.03.2012 and the application for remission of duty was filed on 11.04.2013 seeking remission of duty involved on finished products. The appellant was also issued with the show cause notice on 05.04.2013 for recovery of Cenvat credit involved on the raw mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caused due to the accident of fire, that is, the quantity of finished goods and raw materials destroyed thereunder, could be quantified. It is his contention that even though the remission application was filed way back in 2013, but the Ld. Commissioner decided the issue only in 2017 rejecting their application for remission of duty. It is his contention that inordinate delay in the process of adjudication has resulted gross in justice to them. He submits that now they are in possession of all relevant documents by which they could establish the extent of damage & destructions of finished goods and raw materials due to the accident of fire as on 15.03.2012. Further, he submits that merely because there was delay in filing intimation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Department Report, Insurance Company's Report etc., the extent of damages of finished goods and raw materials could be ascertained. Also, this Tribunal has been consistently holding the view that the delay in filing the intimation of incident of fire cannot be considered as fatal to the right of seeking remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant strenuously claimed that they are in possession of all relevant evidence by which the quantity of finished goods and raw materials that were destroyed in the accident of fire can be ascertained. In the interest of justice, it is prudent to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the evidences on record and that would be produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
