9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner informing that there was a fire in the factory and all machines, raw materials, finished goods and Central Excise records had been burnt to ashes. The appellants also informed the police and the fire department immediately. The Central Excise authorities were requested to appoint an officer to conduct a survey of the factory and ascertain the extent of damage. On 17-12-1997, the appellants filed a claim for remission of duty on the goods lost in the fire. The appellants also provided details of the raw materials, finished goods, capital machines lost in the fire. On the direction of the Superintendent, the appellants reversed the amount of Rs. 32,392/- on 2-2-1998 in respect of the credit on raw materials destroyed in the fire. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est the findings of the Commissioner rejecting remission. They are, therefore, handicapped to defend their case in respect of the show cause notice issued to them demanding duty as it was not disclosed to them that their remission application had been rejected and the grounds of rejection were also not known to them. It was, therefore, pleaded that their appeal may be allowed on this ground alone. Remanding the case after 8 years will not serve the purpose as records will not be available to defend the case. It was also pleaded that when quantity of goods claimed to be destroyed has been considered as wrong then for the same quantity, demand cannot be issued. 3. On behalf of the Revenue, it was pleaded that on 17-9-1999 the Commissioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The remission application was rejected on the ground that appellants could not have manufactured the quantity of semi-finished and finished goods from the inputs issued between 1-12-97 and 11-12-97. If this position is accepted then the demand can also not be issued for the disputed quantity for which remission is claimed. The appellants were prevented from putting proper defence before the adjudicating authority by not intimating the out come of their remission application to them. When the appellant's remission claim was rejected on the ground that they could not have manufactured the goods from input issued, then question of demanding duty on those goods also does not arise. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
