Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether denial of remission of central excise duty for loss of molasses by fire was sustainable when the adjudication order did not specify the preventive measures alleged to have been omitted and was therefore a non-speaking order.
Analysis: Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits remission where goods are lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident, while negligence may justify refusal of remission. The loss of molasses by auto-combustion was treated as an admitted fact, but the adjudication order rejected remission only on the broad assertion that preventive measures had not been taken, without identifying what measures were required or confronting the assessee with any specific omission. An order rejecting remission on such a basis must disclose the material and reasons on which the conclusion rests; otherwise it fails to meet the requirement of a reasoned adjudication and deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to meet the case against it.
Conclusion: The denial of remission was unsustainable; the adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after issuing a proper notice and passing a speaking order.