2017 (11) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent ORDER Per: Raju The appellants are in appeal against rejection of the application for remission of duty and also against imposition of penalty and interest on duty on such goods which were destroyed. The appellants had filed an application for remission of central excise duty on 27.07.2005. Revenue sent a team to the premises of the appellants on the next day. However, due to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the said amount was paid by the appellants under protest towards the value of Rs. 41,96,901 of the damaged goods. The said demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and also by the first appellate authority. The penalty imposed was however reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 40,000/- as against equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of damage immediately the day after the floods, they failed to give evidence regarding the goods damaged. There was no delay on the part of the revenue to send team for verification. As soon's they filed application the very next day revenue sent a team for verification but by then they had destroyed the evidence of damage. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the ....