https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84296 A new factual plea that goods were unsorted tea and non-excisable could not be raised for the first time in appeal because it required factual inquiry not made before the adjudicating authority. Remission of duty was unavailable where the alleged loss was in substance misappropriation and clandestine removal by employees, not accidental loss or theft, leaving the manufacturer responsible under the excise rules. The demand was treated as within limitation because the shortage reflected clandestine removal with intent to evade duty. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) was therefore justified, though the quantum could be moderated on the facts. en-us Mon, 29 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84296 A new factual plea that goods were unsorted tea and non-excisable could not be raised for the first time in appeal because it required factual inquiry not made before the adjudicating authority. Remission of duty was unavailable where the alleged loss was in substance misappropriation and clandestine removal by employees, not accidental loss or theft, leaving the manufacturer responsible under the excise rules. The demand was treated as within limitation because the shortage reflected clandestine removal with intent to evade duty. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) was therefore justified, though the quantum could be moderated on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84296