New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sonia Overseas Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Panchkula

Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - rejection on the ground of Non filing of remission application by the appellant, Non-filing of quantification of shortages of goods lost in flood, Withdrawal of claim of remission by the appellant, appellant was not due diligent in storing their goods - Held that: - As there is no prescribed proforma for filing application for remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the letter dated 04.08.2004 is an application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olving duty of ₹ 10,30,874/- rejection not valid. - Rejection on the ground of Withdrawal of claim of remission by the appellant - Held that: - In the absence of any evidence on record that remission claim filed by the appellant on 04.08.2004 has been withdrawn, merely on the basis of intent, it cannot be said that appellant has withdrawn the remission claim. Therefore, on that ground remission claim cannot be rejected. - Rejection of remission claim on account of that appellant wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t time as the duty is payable at the time of clearance of the goods. In that circumstance, it is obvious that the goods which lying in stock are not duty paid and no duty component was involved in the claim of insurance. Therefore, rejection on this ground is also not sustainable. - The remission claim filed by the appellant is correct and appellant is entitled to claim the remission of duty of ₹ 10,30,874/- and is sanctioned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2153/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter dated 04.08.2004 wherein they filed application for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On 05.08.2005, stock taking was conducted and certain shortages were detected. Instead of entertaining the claim of remission of duty, it was alleged that appellant has clandestinely removed the goods. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to demand duty on the shortage detected on 05.08.2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated and demand of duty along with in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ause notice was adjudicated and the ld. Commissioner has rejected their claim of remission of duty on the following grounds:- (a) The appellant has not filed claim of remission of duty as per the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (b) Quantification of the goods lost in flood has not been provided by the appellant. (c) The appellant was not diligent in storing the goods. (d) The appellant has withdrawn remission application on 07.08.2004. (e) The appellant has not proved the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nchkula, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the letter is an application for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As there is no prescribed proforma for filing application for remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the letter dated 04.08.2004 is an application for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Rules. Therefore, on that ground remission claim cannot be rejected. (b) Non-filing of quantification of shortages of goods lost in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntrary evidence produced by the Revenue to show that the shortage are not on account of goods lost in flood. In that circumstance, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant by holding that there was a shortage of goods lost in flood involving duty of ₹ 10,30,874/-. (c) Withdrawal of claim of remission by the appellant. I find that on 07.08.2004, a statement was recorded of the appellant wherein the appellant has stated that they are going to withdraw their remission application .....

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