9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Act, 1985. 3. A fire broke out in the Sack Sewing unit of the appellant on 25.03.1991, in which the goods in the factory were damaged. The sequence of events after the fire on 25.03.1991 is listed below:- (i) Appellant informed the local Police Station and jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner about the fire incident on 26.03.91. (ii) Detailed Report of fire submitted to Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-III Howrah South Division. (iii) For clearance of the salvaged goods which were not exceeding 92 cm in length, appellant submitted a Classification List. (iv) Appellant submitted application for reemission of duty to Commissioner on 12.03.1992. (v) Thereafter, on query by department further clarification was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.2010 (Impugned order). (xvi) The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2010. 3. The case of the appellant is argued by Shri Anjan Dasgupta, Ld. Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Ld. A. R. 4. The main arguments different on behalf of the appellant is summarized below:- (i) The demand confirmed by the impugned order will not be payable by the appellant, since the goods damaged in fire are entitled to remission from payment of duty as the goods were destroyed in fire on 25.03.1991. (ii) In the last round of litigation before the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for passing order, denovo, after the disposal of the remission app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. In the last round of litigation before Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was remanded by him to the Original Authority for denovo decision, after the disposal of the remission application by the Jurisdictional Collector. Even though the original authority in his order dated 19.01.2007, has referred to a communication from the Commissioner dated 07.12.2006, rejecting the application for remission, the appellant has claimed that they have received no such order from the Commissioner. 8. We have perused the case laws cited by the Ld. Advocate, in which the ratio is that application for remission is to be decided first before the question of demand for duty is to be considered. Consequentially, we find no option but to set aside the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
