Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1172 - HC - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Rule 21 of the CER 2002 - Whether the loss and destruction of goods because of accidental fire which took place in the appellant factory falls within the meaning of the phrase "goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident" for purposes of remission of duty? - Held that: - The goods have been destroyed in fire and there is no evidence that no preventive measures were taken by the appellant then it can be safely assumed on the basis of evidence brought on record by the appellant which included FIR, report of City Magistrate and District Magistrate and grant of insurance claim, that fire broke out accidentally - loss and destruction of goods because of accidental fire which took place in the appellant factory falls within the meaning of the phrase "goods have been lost or destroyed for natural causes or by unavoidable accident for the purposes of remission duty under Rule-21 of CER, 2002 - remission allowed. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the claim of remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 even though the cause of accident in the appellant factory was accidental fire? - Held that: - Tribunal has not at all considered the material evidence available on record and jumped to the conclusion that fire took place due to the negligence of the appellant, on the basis of findings of Commissioner appeals, no independent application of mind is there by the Tribunal. So, finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim, cannot be said to be justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|