Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 & 27 - fire accident - 1874.500 kg. P.U. Foam blocks completely destroyed - Held that: - no finding against the appellant of any contumacious conduct, negligence or operating of their factory without proper consent as required under the law’s - penalty imposed set aside - appeal allowed. - Remission claim - levy of duty - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the occurrence of the fire in the factory of the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal against Order-in-appeal dated 25.04.2008 whereby the penalty imposed vide Order-in-Original ₹ 31,758/- under Rule 25 & 27 have been confirmed. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The admitted facts are that there was an incident of fire on 12.12.2005 in the factory of the appellant, wherein 1874.500 kg. P.U. Foam blocks were completely destroyed. Intimation of fire was given on 13.12.2005 to the Range Superintendent along with copy to the Deputy Commissioner. In the course of verification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Fire Department immediately by occurrence of fire. Further, they have reversed the Cenvat Credit taken on input, used in the manufacturer of goods amounting to ₹ 30,967/-. They are filling application for remission of duty before Commissioner. Further, the claim submitted to the Insurance Company without including the element of duty. The demand was confirmed on contest observing that at the time of issuing of SCN appellant had not applied for remission of duty, but the same was applie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 31,758/- jointly under Rule 25 & 27 of the CER, 2002, read with Section 11AC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred appeal before learned Commissioner vide the impugned order having pleased to reject the appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that as the amount was small they have not contested the rejection of remission claim on merits and have deposited the duty as imposed on them. So for the penalty imposed is concern, the learned Counsel states th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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