2015 (9) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 3-9-2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, wherein the demand of Central Excise duty along with interest and penalties imposed in the adjudication order were upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of branded and unbranded socks falling unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confirming the proposals made therein. In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant suo motu claimed deduction of manufactured goods from their stocks without any intimation to the Department and also no intimation has been filed about the fire incidence so as to enable the Department to undertake necessary verification a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authorities. He also submits that occurrence of fire in the factory was brought to the knowledge of the jurisdictional Range Superintendent by the appellant vide its letter dated 2-11-2012, enclosing therewith all the requisite details. 4. On the other hand, Sh. G.R. Singh, the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. I have heard t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e factory, I am of the view that payment of Central Excise duty cannot be fastened on such destroyed goods. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also not justified in view of the fact that goods have not been removed from the factory. However, since the appellant had not informed the Central Excise Authorities regarding the fire incidence took place in the factory....