9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant is also availing Cenvat credit of duty on inputs received for the manufacture of the final product. It is the case of the appellant that there was a major storm on 17/4/2011, which resulted in damage of plant and machinery as well as the stock of raw materials, work in progress and finished goods. The appellant had filed the yearly return for the month of March 2011. Pursuant to the loss by storm the appellant, who was insured for loss with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed the claim of loss, pursuant to which, loss report was obtained by the insurance company being report dated 25/5/12 and 15/3/12. The claim was settled sometime in June 2012, wherein for loss of the stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urance claim, the show cause notice dated 17/4/13 was issued as to why not the request for waiver of duty and reversal of Cenvat credit, as sought, vide letter dated 16/3/13 be not rejected and further why not interest and penalty be levied. The appellant contested the SCN stating therein the fact of the damage in the occurance of the storm, and further damage of the stock due to fire and also enclosed the copy of balance sheets as on 31/3/12, copy of insurance claim, further praying for condonation of the delay in information of loss to the revenue. The SCN was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 10/1/14 observing that the information of loss have been, for the first time, received in the office of Revenue vide letter dated 30/1/13 af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no staff in the factory premises. It is further contended that the claim has been rejected only on technical grounds, being delay and refusal to verify the claim which could have been verified, with support from the report of the survey of Insurance Company as well as audited balance sheet, et cetera. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in rejecting the claim of rebate of duty. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order may be set aside with a direction to the adjudicating authority to verify the claim, with respect to the documents available and allow the same. 5. So far the delay in preferring the claim is concerned, it is stated that the appellant was disturbed due to huge loss and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have approached the revenue after much delay of about 20 months. Further, I take note that the appellant had approached for cancellation of registration in August 2012 itself. Thus the revenue had some information about disturbance by storm in the appellant's unit, resulting into disruption of production et cetera. Accordingly, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for determining the quantum of claim allowable to the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant is also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with all of the supporting documents on which they wish to rely. The adjudicating authority shall dispose of the remissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
