TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are unable to trace the appeal paper book. Therefore, requested for fresh date. We find that the reason given by them is not sufficient to give any adjournment. 3. The facts in brief are that : The appellant was having their factory of plastic articles at 502, GIDC, Halol, Distt. Panchamahal (Gujarat). Information was received from the appellant vide their letter dated 28-3-1996 that a fire accident took place at their registered premises. The factory was visited by the Range Officer on 28-3-1996 who drew Panchnama wherein it was stated that assembly department where the assembling and packing was done, and shed No. 2 where finished goods and semi-finished goods were stored were destroyed in fire along with the excise records. The statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to the revenue of the Government. Their responsibility was all the more pronounced as the entire goods stored in the premises were inflammable. But M/s. Milton Plastics industries took no special precaution. He also observed that there is no indication in the certificate dated 19-4-1996 issued by the Central Fire Brigade Station, Vadodara, to the effect that the staff of M/s. Milton Plastics Indus. were trying to extinguish the fire with their fire fighting equipment like fire extinguishers, sand or water buckets etc. He finally concluded that the fire accident cannot be considered to be due to natural cause or an unavoidable accident and confirmed the demand of Rs. 32,34,885.57. 4. In the appeal petition, it is pleaded that all the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the appellant as they were not keeping fire fighting equipment in their factory. He also pleaded that to ascertain the exact quantity of the goods destroyed, the appellant had failed to give the Survey Report. He further pleaded that the burden is on the appellant to establish that the goods were destroyed in fire which were due to the unavoidable accident and for claiming the remission of duty under Proviso to Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, the burden is on them to establish the quantity of the goods destroyed in the unavoidable accident. He relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mangal Sen Lal Man v. Union of India, 2000 (125) E.L.T. 61 (All.) 6. We have considered the submissions made by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails of the goods destroyed and the demand notice was issued only for that duty and for those goods which were quantified by the appellant, therefore, the Department has no other information that the goods shown, as destroyed by the appellant, is not the correct quantity. The certificate dated 15-2-1999 (Page 180 of the paper book) issued by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. shows that no element of Modvat excise portion of the relevant stock in raw material, bought out parts, semi-finished goods and finished goods is included in the full and finally settled amount of damage loss payment. 7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned SDR and in the findings of the Commissioner. We, therefore, hold that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
