2018 (6) TMI 1133 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI – Remission of duty – there was a delay of 6 days in filing intimation of the accident of fire with the department – Held that:- 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 – It is prudent to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the evidences on record and that would be produced by the appellant in support of the remission application – appeal allowed by way of remand. – E/11876/2017 – A/10999/2018 – Dated:- 27-3-2018 – Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s) : Shri S. D. Gohil, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri J. Nagori, AR ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against OIO No. VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-19-17-18 dated 05.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara-I. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
81/- on the finished goods destroyed in the fire accident on 15.03.2012. Pending adjudication of the said show cause notice, the Ld. Commissioner by the impugned order, rejected their application for remission of duty involved on the finished goods destroyed in fire. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The Ld. Advocate Shri S. D. Gohil for the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has rejected their application solely on the ground that there was a delay of 5 days in filing the intimation of the fire accident with the department and the remission application has been filed consequent to the notice dated 05.04.2013 issued to the appellant. He submits that even though there was a delay in filing the remission application with the department, but, necessary intimation was filed with the police station and the police have drawn panchnama in their premises recording the accident of fire in their premises. Also, he has submitted that they have produced necessary evidence to establish that th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ions 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 department, the application seeking remission from duty on finished goods cannot be rejected on the said ground in view of the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Vraj Packaging Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman – 2016 (342) ELT 159 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Sam Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II – 2016 (337) ELT 146 (Tri.-Del.). Further, he has submitted that there is no stipulation of time under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for filing the remission application immediately on destructions of the goods due to the accident of fire or unavoidable accident. He has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority so as to enable to them to file necessary evidence in support their claim for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =