Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 195 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Loss due to auto combustion - Held that:- Oozing out is a natural phenomenon and, therefore, the case is well covered under Rule 21. The learned AR's contention that the respondent did not take sufficient precaution is not acceptable in the light of reports of Sector Officer and Range Officer as discussed above. The learned AR has not been able to show from any technical document that the respondent should have stored 10% less of the total capacity of the tank. Even assuming that this was a technical necessity, it cannot be denied that the oozing out was caused due to natural phenomena of excessive heating in the summer months. It is not the case of the Revenue that the quantity which oozed out, was used later. Neither is the case of the Revenue that the quantity in the tank which was 131472.30 quintals as verified by UP Excise authorities, did not reflect the correct quantity stored in tank No. 3. Revenue has not even verified either the quantity stored in the tank or the quantity oozed out. Revenue's appeal is simply based on the survey report of the insurance company which excluded 10% of the quantity stored while sanctioning the insured value. Even if the insurance company did not consider the quantity which had oozed out, there is no denying the fact that the same had occurred due to a natural phenomena. Therefore, no case is made out for denial of remission. - Decided against Revenue.
|