TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Cargo Ltd (100%AIO) is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and fine chemicals falling under chapter 30, 34 and 38 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant have availed Cenvat credit on input and input services on capital goods and they have also procured the goods under CT3 from DTA and also imported under procurement certificate without payment of Central Excise/custom duty. A fire accident has occurred at the manufacturing premises of the appellant on 07.03.2017 at 7.15 PM, the appellant had immediately informed about the incident to the fire brigade, police, FSI and Central Excise Authorities. The appellant also had reported the fire incident to the Deputy Commissioner with copy to Range Superinte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice dated 01.05.2019 proposing excise duty of Rs.39,23,874/- on domestic purchase of goods against CT 3 form which were destroyed in the fire accident. Consequent upon the rejection of the remission application the learned Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad adjudicated the show cause notice dated 28.10.2022 passed order-in-original no. AHM-CUSTM-000-CUM-037-22-23 dated 16.03.2023 confirming the demand of custom duty involved in the duty free imported goods under procurement certificates which were destroyed in the fire accident against which the appellant filed appeal bearing no. C/10336/202023. The show cause notice dated 01.05.2019 proposing the demand of Central Excise duty on the domestically procured goods under CT 3 was also adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012 (12) TMI 386 - CESTAT, New Delhi - Sheela Foam Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Noida 2009 (247) ELT 751 (Tri.-Bang.) - Vamsadhara Paper Mills Ltd Vs. Commer. of Cus., Visakhapatnam. 2006 (206) ELT 1015 (Tri.-Bang.) - Next Fashion Creators Pvt Ltd Vs. Commer. Of Cus., Bangalore 2012 (280) ELT 374 (Kar.) - CC Vs. Next Fashion Creatos Pvt Ltd 2017 (357) ELT 220 (Tri.-All.) - Tej Shoe Tech Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kanpur 2005 (188) ELT 206 (Tri.-Mumbai) - Milton Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara 2017 (350) ELT 443 (Tri.-Hyd.) - Laxmi Avanti Life Sciences Pvt Ltd Vs. CC., C. Ex. & S.T., Hyderabad-IV Since, they have made out of strong case of remission of duty, consequenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... various deficiencies. The observation of the Commissioner in the impugned order passed on remission application are reproduced below:- "12. The Noticee vide their letter dated 04.05.2017 submitted the data of goods lost/destroyed in fire containing the description, quantity, value, Duty involved etc. of the various goods, included inputs which were issued for manufacture and lying at various stages of production process, including inputs contained in semi- finished/intermediate goods of value Rs.6,26,72,679/- with Duty involved of Rs.1,16,30,411/-. It appeared from this data that the inputs lost in fire accident consisted of imported inputs and indigenous inputs procured without payment of Duty under the provisions of Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent also observed that the documents submitted by the Noticee were neither certified nor did they submit any supportive documents of the same. Further, the Noticee had also stated in their letter dated 04.05.2017 that they "crave leave to add, alter, modify or rescind the submissions made" by their application, either wholly or in part. 13.2 Therefore, vide letter dated 18.05.2017, the jurisdictional Range Superintendent asked the Noticee for clarification in this aspect. Further, vide letters dated 06.10.2017, 25.01.2018 and 15.03.2019, the Noticee were reminded to submit the documents sought vide letter dated 18.05.2017. A number of telephonic calls were also made to the Noticee in this regard. As considerable time has been elap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s leviable on the goods as are not proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to have been used in the manufacture of Articles for export and any penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules or Regulations made there under as the case may be. In the present case, the Noticee also failed to fulfill the conditions laid down under the B-17 Bond executed by them." From the above observation, it appears that the learned Commissioner has raised various deficiency for deciding the remission application however, it appears that the appellant had no occasion to explain the above queries of the learned Commissioner before the adjudication, therefore in our considered v....