Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands duty application due to lack of specificity, orders reevaluation and speaking order issuance.</h1> The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the remission application for duty on finished goods lost in a fire due to lack of specificity and absence of a ... Remission of the duty on the finished goods - Goods destroyed in fire - Held that:- On perusal of the conditions as mentioned in trade notice No.16/2005 indicates eight conditions. The letter from the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman (as reproduced hereinabove) does not indicate which of the condition is not met by the appellant. We are also of the view that the ld. Commissioner should have issued a speaking order after following the principles of natural justice while considering remission application, instead of issuing a letter - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Rejection of remission application for duty on finished goods destroyed in fire.2. Confirmation of demand for duty liability on finished goods and reversal of cenvat credit on inputs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal was against the rejection of a remission application for duty on finished goods lost in a fire. The appellant's factory experienced a fire accident, leading to the destruction of finished goods and raw materials with input credit. The remission application was dismissed based on conditions from a trade notice, but the appellant claimed they were not informed of these conditions. The Tribunal found that the rejection lacked specificity on which condition was not met and criticized the absence of a speaking order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection letter and directed a reconsideration by the adjudicating authority following principles of natural justice.Issue 2:In a related appeal, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty liability on finished goods destroyed in the fire and the reversal of cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing. However, as the remission application was remanded for reconsideration, the Tribunal decided to set aside the original order and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate both issues jointly and issue a speaking order. Both appeals were allowed through remand for further consideration by the adjudicating authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
