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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Versus Ravi Dyeware Co. Ltd.

2017 (11) TMI 651 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Remission of duty - reversal of credit - Held that: - the Commissioner has relied upon the surveyor's report and the insurance claim made with the insurance company M/s.Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ld., wherein the insurance company has settled the total claim of Rs..15,51,91,320/- against the claim of the appellant for remission of duty on the destroyed goods. Evidence of surveyor s report and the insurance company is conclusive, the department has no iota of evidence to rebut the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ginal passed by the Commissioner whereby the appellant s remission application for remission of duty amounting to ₹ 65,07,746/- was allowed. The fact of the case is that due to heavy rain and floods in Mumbai in July 2005 various materials including finished goods were got destroyed in the factory premises of the respondent. The respondent sought remission of duty on the finished goods. They have also reversed the Cenvat Credit on the inputs lying as such and the inputs contained in the fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing. He filed a written submission dated 14/08/2007 which was taken on record. (i) He briefly summarized that they had paid/reversed total duty amounting to Rs,1,03,64,302/- towards: (a) Duty on inputs destroyed (b) Duty on inputs under process (c) Duty on inputs used in finished goods lost/destroyed (d) (ii) The detailed breakup under different heads had been verified by the Range Superintendent as well as the insurance surveyor. The Range Superintendent s report would be with the department. ( .....

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 floods be remitted and the instant show cause cum demand notice dated 02/08/2006, be dropped . 2.1 He submits that in view of the above grounds, the remission was wrongly allowed by the Commissioner, which deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Ajay Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterates the findings in the impugned order. He further submits that as regards the charge of clearance of finished goods without payment of duty is based on the assumption as there is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion and filing of ER1 return got delayed which was not intentional. Therefore, the same cannot be the reason for denial of remission. As regards the delay in intimation to the department, he submits that as submitted above, since the priority of the appellant was to overcome the trauma of heavy floods, they could not intimate the incidence of flood within twenty four hours. This procedural aspect cannot come in the way of remission for the reason that the entire case of loss was taken up by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submits that due to massive flood it was beyond anybody s control to safe guard the goods. Therefore, this ground is absolutely irrelevant. Regarding the ground that the respondent was not entitled to write off the quantity of loss of goods in flood which was liable to pay appropriate Central Excise duty. He submits that once the claim was made before the insurance agency, if the goods are lost or destroyed in flood, the goods is not existing and it has to be written off in the books of account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that all the allegation made in the grounds of appeal are not supported by any independent evidence. Therefore, it is of superfluous and based on the assumption and presumption. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the respondents have made remission claim before the Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner after due process of principles of natural justice, issued show-cause notice and on the basis of submissions made by the respondent allowed the remis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

person and on whose report the insurance company settles the insurance claim. In this case, I find that the surveyors (M/s.Bhatawadekar & Co) have furnished their report dated 31/01/2007 indicating the loss/damage of goods and property in the floods. This is consistent with the loss of finished goods claimed by the party. On the basis of this report the Insurance company M/s.Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Co. Ltd., have settled a claim of ₹ 15,51,91,320/- which covers loss of not .....

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