TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondence with the appellant, thereafter seeking the survey report and actual details of the goods, however, the appellant failed to submit the same. The appellant claimed that the goods have been cleared along with scraps. I find that remission cannot be granted without actual ascertainment of the damage and verification to the satisfaction of the Revenue. In the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the appellant was reminding the Revenue to take action on remission application. In the instant case, it is apparent that the Revenue was alert and action was taken immediately after submission of remission application. In these circumstances, destruction and disposal of goods without verification/inspection cannot be condoned, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It seems that many of the materials were salvaged and used in the manufacturing operations and some goods were drifted away during floods. It was also reported that the appellant have stated that the goods badly damaged became rusty and were beyond salvage and the good were defaced and cleared as scrap along with process scrap generated during manufacturing process. The appellant had apparently stated that such scrap of damaged goods could not be identified separately. It seems that the goods were not presented before the officer and that goods have been removed from the factory as scraps. The Commissioner rejected the remission claim on the ground that the said claim can be made only be made before removal of goods and not after that. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile the damage occurred on 26/07/2005 and the appellant has made their mind to seek remission on 03/08/2005. They took more than four months to give details. He argued that thereafter there was a chain of correspondence between the appellants and the range superintendent and in these circumstances, the appellant should not have disposed off the materials without inspection. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Revenue is not denying the fact that there could be damaged to the goods. However, the sole challenge of the Revenue is on the ground of ascertainment of the actual quantum of damage. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules as follows: Rule 21. Remission of duty. - Where it is shown to the satisfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their application for remission on 15/12/2005, almost 4 1/2 months after they making up their mind. Revenue was in correspondence with the appellant, thereafter seeking the survey report and actual details of the goods, however, the appellant failed to submit the same. The appellant claimed that the goods have been cleared along with scraps. I find that remission cannot be granted without actual ascertainment of the damage and verification to the satisfaction of the Revenue. 5. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., (supra), under similar circumstances, remission was allowed, though he goods were destroyed before examination. In the said case, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
