TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN, nor the appellant were given any opportunity of personal hearing at any stage by the adjudicating authority and the impugned order has been passed without reference to them - the matter requires to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/60784/2017 - Final Order No. 60039/2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Sh. Vikrant Kackria, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. G.S. Dhillon, A.R. ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellant have filed this appeal against the impugned order dt. 28.06.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a fire in the factory of the appellant on 01.05.2012. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished goods destroyed in fire incident. (d) The party has not given declaration that the duty amount sought to be remitted has not been claimed from the insurance company. (e) Party has already been compensated by the Insurance Company for the value of the finished goods which is inclusive of the value of the inputs. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate at the outset points out that there was no show cause notice, nor they were given any chance for personal hearing at any stage by the adjudicating authority. Contesting the first ground of not intimating the Department within 24 hours, he contended that there were no such instructions or guidelines of the Board. He relied on the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that the appellant have intimated the Department about the fire on 07.05.2012 within 6 days of the fire. The fact of the fire is not disputed by both the parties. I also find that necessary documents and the declaration were submitted to the Department by the appellant. The necessary documents were submitted by the appellant on 17.04.2013 and 22.04.2014. The declaration was contained in the claim filed by the appellant at Sr. No. 9. I note that the Ld. Commissioner has decided the case after three years without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to defend themselves. I find that Commissioner has also not taken the documents into account, which were duly submitted by the appellant and the Ld. AR is not disputing that fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
