TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for de novo adjudication taking into consideration all the supporting documents submitted by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 274/2009 - FO/A/75414/2018 - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Anjan Dasgupta, Advocate. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER PER SHRI V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24/02/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II in which he rejected the claim made by the appellant in terms of Rule 147 (for remission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, vide final order No. 1255/KOL/08 dated- 15/12/2008, set aside the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and directed that the question of demand of duty is to be decided after the Jurisdictional Commissioner passes a speaking order after hearing the appellant in relation to the request for remission of duty. Complying with the order of CESTAT, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated-24/02/2009 rejecting the Remission Application which is challenged in the present appeal. 4. Heard Shri Anjan Dasgupta, Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri S. Chattopadhyay, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. 5. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Jurisdictional Commissioner, whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the order in which the Ld. Commissioner has recorded that the appellant has failed to produce corroborative documents in support of their claim for loss of goods in fire accident. He further pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the letter dated 2/4/2004, addressed to the Additional Commissioner, has in fact been received by the Departmental officers. 8. We have heard both sides at length and perused the record. 9. The dispute involve fire accidents which are said to have taken place at the appellant s factory on 8/2/1994, 23/9/1995, 27/12/1995 and 8/6/1996. The appellant claimed loss of goods in such fire accidents and have prayed for remission of duty payable on such goods. Inspite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
