Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Barodia Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Rohtak & Delhi-III

2015 (10) TMI 1985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Remission of duty - Goods destroyed in fire accident - Non intimation to the Department within 24 hrs - Appellant failed to take necessary steps to avoid fire accident - Appellant has not produced the evidence whether they have availed the duty element in the claim from Insurance company or not - Held that:- fire continued from 17th to 18th April 2002. Only on 19th April 2002 appellant could have intimated to the Department but inadvertently they failed to intimate the Department. As 20th and 21 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

yment of excise duty. It is a fact on record that fire accident took place due to short circuit in electric wire. The, short circuit in electric wire is not in the hand of a man who could avoid such accident. Therefore, it cannot be the reason that appellant failed to take necessary steps to avoid fire accident. Therefore, on this ground also claim of remission of duty cannot be denied.

Appellant has produced the document on record that insurance company has not sanctioned the amount .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/2845/2011-EX(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 52810-52811/2015-EX(SM) - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate : for the Petitioner Shri R.K. Grover, DR : for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeals against the impugned orders for denying the claim of duty. Consequently, confirmation of payment of duty and penalty on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that on 17-18/04/2002 fire took place in the factory of the appellant wherein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsequently, the claim of remission of duty was denied. In consequent to that duty is demanded by the appellant by passing another order along with interest and imposition of penalty. Aggrieved from the said orders appellant is before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in earlier round of litigation this Tribunal has dismissed their appeal on the ground that appellant has failed to produce the evidence that they have not received duty element from insurance company. The said or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of goods and no claim has been sanctioned towards duty element. Therefore, as appellant has not recovered his claim of insurance from the insurance company they are entitled for the remission of the same. He further submits that the cause of fire has been found short circuit of electric wire which is an unavoidable incidence and the observation of the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order is totally incorrect holding that appellant has not taken care and aided and abetted the fire accident to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant could not inform to the appellant. 20th and 21st April being Saturday and Sunday, so on 22nd April appellant informed to the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was negligent by not informing to the department. 5. He further submits that on 24.04.2002 department officers came to the factory of the appellant to ascertain the fact that whether fire took place in the factory or not. He also submits that appellant intimated to the fire department and to the police regard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence whether they have availed the duty element in the claim from Insurance company or not. 9. With regard to the intimation to the Department it is a fact on record that fire continued from 17th to 18th April 2002. Only on 19th April 2002 appellant could have intimated to the Department but inadvertently they failed to intimate the Department. As 20th and 21st April were holidays, therefore, appellant could intimate to the Department only on 22.04.2002. Not giving intimation on 19th April will .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version