TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case, the requirement of the observation of the principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with before rejecting the remission application as both the proceedings are treated separately by the Department. - remission application be taken afresh after affording an opportunity to the Appellants to place necessary evidences and defend their case effectively. After deciding their remission application afresh, the adjudicating authority would proceed with the adjudication of demand notices issued for recovery of duty. It is made clear that all issues are kept open and both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their support. In the result, the impugned Orders are set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,00,000/- U/Sec.25 (1) of Central Excise Rules,2002 3. Since the issues involved in all these Stay Applications common, accordingly, these are taken up together for disposal with the consent of both sides. 4. The ld.Advocate, Shri V.N.Dwivedi, appearing for the Applicants, M/s Sarvapari Impex Ltd., submits that the Applicants are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in the manufacture of mouth freshners falling under Chapter Sub-heading No.21069070 of CETA, 1985. It is his submission that due to devastating fire in their factory premises on 22.11.2009 at around 8.55 p.m., the raw materials, goods in process and finished goods were destroyed. Necessary intimation of the said incident of fire was filed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgued that in their Daily Stock Account (DSA), the stock of finished goods as on 21st November, 2009, has been indicated, and since 22nd November, 2009, was Sunday, a holiday no production did take place, accordingly, no production figure was entered in the DSA for 22.11.2009; but the ld. Commissioner in his order, observed that the Applicant failed to furnish the details of the stock position as on 22.11.2009. In nutshell, it is his contention that the stock position indicated as on 21.11.2009 in their DSA was the goods in stock, on which they claimed remission. Similar explanation could not be furnished against various adverse observations recorded in the impugned order, since the Applicants were not allowed an opportunity to present thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and just manner. 6. The Ld. Adv. vehemently argued that even though all the evidences were enclosed with the remission application, the ld.Commissioner has failed to consider the said evidences and rejected the remission application on the ground of non-production of evidences. Advancing further arguments the Ld. Advocate has submitted that even though in their first remission application filed with the Range Superintendent, on 12.01.2010, they have not referred to the relevant rules, under which remission was sought, however, in their application dated 09.06.2010 addressed to the Commissioner, Haldia Commissionerate, they have referred to Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as well as Section 23 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, under wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain the correctness of the claim for remission of duty filed by them. He has further submitted that since the Applicants had deliberately not furnished all the evidences before the adjudicating authority, the remission Application has been rightly rejected by the Adjudicating authority. Further, he has submitted that since the Applicants had not taken proper care to prevent fire, hence, their claim for remission of duty is devoid of merit and accordingly denied. 8. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeals itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of all dues adjudged and with the consent of both sides, the appeals are taken up for final disposal. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no separate hearing is required to be allowed as the Appellants were heard on 02.02.2012 in respect of demand notices, involving similar facts, is unacceptable for the simple reason that in the said Demand Notices, there has been no reference to the remission application. In any case, the requirement of the observation of the principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with before rejecting the remission application as both the proceedings are treated separately by the Department. 10. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the remission application be taken afresh after affording an opportunity to the Appellants to place necessary evidences and defend their case effectively. After deciding their remission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
