Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Vraj Packaging Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman

2016 (11) TMI 186 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Incidence of fire in the factory - remission of duty involved on the semi-finished goods and finished goods - necessary intimation on incidence of fire in the factory of the Appellant was not submitted to the department; whereby the department was not in a position to assess the extent of damage and duty involved on damaged finished goods - Held that: - I have seen the copy of the letter dated 22.10.2006 intimating the incidence of fire, addressed to the Superintendent is enclosed in the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ming that after the incidence of fire, the department has issued demand notice for recovery of duty on the goods destroyed in the said fire, being failed to receive any such intimation from the Appellant. In the result, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the evidences afresh and arrive at a conclusion on the issue of remission of duty. I also find that appellant had claimed remission of duty on both semi-finished and finished goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 dated 14.10.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PP Bags and other goods falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There was an incidence of fire in their factory on 21/22.10.2006 between 21.00 hrs and 04.00 hrs. resulting into destruction of raw material, semi-finished goods and finished goods. After reversing the CENVAT credit of ₹ 2,32,532/-, involved .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10.2006, but the ld. Commissioner has rejected their application solely on the ground that necessary intimation of incidence of fire was not furnished to the Range Superintendent within 24 hours of the said incident. Ld. Advocate further submits that even though the incident of fire was intimated to the Range Superintendent soon after the incidence, however, the said fact is disputed by the Revenue. It is his contention that beside the said intimation to the department, there are other evidences .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

insurance company against some quantity of finished goods, but it was excluding the excise duty claimed for remission. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the appellant has not followed the prescribed procedure by filing intimation letter with the department. In the absence of proper intimation to the department, the actual loss or damage to finished goods involved could not be ascertained. 5. I find that the ld. Commissioner rejected the remission application mainly on the ground that necess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version