S.S Kang, Vice President:— Heard both sides.
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby remission application filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground that the appellants had not produced evidence that claim before the insurance company does not include the portion of the excise duty payable on the goods.
3. Contention of the appellants is that they filed insurance claim approximately for Rs. 10 lakhs and the insurance company sanctioned the claim approximately for Rs. 4 lakhs and the matter is pending before the State Consumer Forum. Contention of the appellants is that they have not claimed excise duty payable on goods destroyed in fire from the insurance company and that they are willing to give undertaking that they will not claim portion of the excise duty from the insurance company. Contention is also that the Revenue enquired from the insurance company regarding claim of the appellants to ensure whether excise duty payable on the goods destroyed in fire is part of the claim and the insurance company has not given this information on the ground that the matter is subjudice. The Revenue's contention is that since the appellants filed application for remission of duty, they have to show that the excise duty payable on the goods destroyed in fire is not claimed by them from the insurance company.
4. I find that as the insurance company has not given any information regarding query raised by the Revenue on the ground that the matter is subjudice. Since it requires verification, whether the appellants have claimed from the insurance company the portion of excise duty payable on goods destroyed in fire and matter is pending before the State Consumer Form, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Appeal is disposed off by way of remand.