9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was regularly paying duty on the clearances was also filing the monthly returns. 2. There was fire in the factory of the appellant at approx. 7.40 a.m. (Friday) on 03.06.2016. The case of fire is stated to be generation of sparks in the transformer, which is located in close proximity. The sparks entered in the factory premises and entered the finished goods godown through the window, resulting in loss of finished goods. The incidence of loss was duly reported to the Police Station and the Fire Department under the Municipal Corporation. With the help of the Fire Department the fire was extinguished, however, resulting into loss of the finished goods. The appellant immediately by their letter dated 06.06.2016 (Monday) informed the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st under Section 11AA of the Act. This order was not served on the appellant. 5. The appellant had filed their claim for remission on 30.12.2019 before the jurisdictional Commissioner. It is further case of the appellant that the ex-parte adjudication order demanding duty and penalty by the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.11.2018 was served upon them only on 02.09.2021. Thereafter the appellant took steps and filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.09.2021. The remission claim was rejected by the Principal Commissioner by ex-parte order dated 23.09.2021, stating that in response to show cause notice dated 09.04.2018 the Adjudicating Authority have confirmed the duty demand vide order-in-original dated 29.11.2018. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the appellant they could salvage the raw material and machinery for production. It is stated that some of the goods, which were not fully destroyed but were rendered unfit for human consumption, resulting into total loss. 8. Learned Counsel further urges that the loss has occurred as the goods have been lost undisputedly due to unavoidable accident of fire. Further due to such loss by fire, the partially damaged goods became unfit for human consumption as well as for marketing, before the removal from the factory. Thus, the appellant is entitled to remission as provided in Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is further urged that the Court below have rejected the claim for remission without considering the issue on merits, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
