Remission claim rejected on ground that ‘assessee had not taken proper care for fire accident' and consequently demand confirmed - Matter remanded
THE remission application filed by the assessee under Rule 21 of the CER, 2002 was rejected by the CCE, Thane-I. Consequently, duty demand on the goods lost in fire was confirmed and the lower appellate authority too upheld the demand.
The appellant is before the CESTAT against both the orders.
It is submitted that the rejection of remission application was without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard and hence it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Bench observed -
"5. The impugned order is only an intimation to the appellant on behalf of the Commissioner that their claim of remission of duty has been rejected that you have not taken proper care for fire accident but no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. Therefore, I hold that the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Same is set aside and matter is remanded to the ld. Commissioner for fresh consideration of the issue with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
6. Appeal no. E/1951/12 is arising consequent to the order passed in Appeal E/1390/11 therefore it is held that the impugned order is pre-mature. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue after decision in the Remission application filed by the appellant. Stay application as well as Appeal are disposed of in the above terms."
Now, the remission application would hang fire.