2012 (2) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 985. A fire accident took place in their factory on 1st May, 2005 and destroyed ice cream. They filed application dated 26-5-2005 for remission of duty on the ice cream destroyed in fire. A show cause notice dated 24-11-2006 was issued proposing to reject the remission application. Further, another show cause notice dated 28-4-2006 was issued demanding duty of Rs. 1,39,837/- in respect of the quantity of 11902 units/19912.80 Ltrs. of ice cream reportedly damaged during the fire accident occurred in the factory on 1-5-2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order dated 20-9-2006 rejected the claim for remission of duty of Rs. 1,39,837/- against which the appellant filed appeal No. E/3962/06 by Adjudication Order dated 7-5-2007. The Ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terates the findings of the Commissioner. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant provisions of Chapter 18 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. He submits that it is mandatory requirement to obtain permission for destruction of the damaged goods in the presence of the officers. He submits that in the present case, the appellants have not obtained the permission from the Central Excise officers for destruction of the goods for, the same are violation of the instructions. He submits that the case laws laid down by the learned Advocate is not applicable in this case as in the said case, the goods were destroyed due to flood. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Division within 15 days of receipt." 6. On going through the order of the Commissioner rejecting the request for remission, I find that the fact of occurrence of fire in the appellants factory and the fact of intimating the same within 24 hours does not stand disputed by the Commissioner. It is also seen that the Range Superintendent visited the factory on 4-5-2001 and by that time the damaged goods could not be quantified by the appellants. The goods were actually segregated subsequently and were destroyed on 8-5-2005 in the presence of surveyor. The remission stands rejected by the Commissioner on the sole ground that the provisions of para 1.3 of Chapter 18 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions does not stand f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X