TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and VAT was not paid to the appellant. Learned AR during argument stressed that appellant has not reversed the Cenvat credit taken on the inputs, which were contained in the finished goods, as per Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant has fairly conceded reversal/ payment of cenvat credit under Rule 3(5C) if their prayer for remission of duty is allowed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/11965,13530/2014 - ORDER No. A/12100-12101/2014 - Dated:- 24-11-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; These miscellaneous application, stay application and appeals have been filed by appellant M/s. Sanskrit Packaging Pvt. Limited, Surat with respect to order-in-original Nos. OIO-SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-101-13-14 dated 31.01.2014 and OIO-V/TECH-02/2013-14 dated 28.03.2014 passed by Adjudicating authority confirming demand of ₹ 47,75,036 and ₹ 5,54,120/-, along with interest and equivalent penalties have also been imposed. Under the second OIO dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 28.3.2014 is also bad in law as the same has been issued without a show cause notice and by not following the principles of natural justice. That remission application of the appellant is denied only on the grounds that the accident was avoidable and that appellant has claimed the incidence of duty from the insurance Company. It was strongly argued by the learned Consultant that once police authorities and the insurance Company has accepted the fire incident as an accident and settled appellants claim, it can not be said that the accident was avoidable. It was his case that if this view is taken that each and every case of destruction can be held to be avoidable by taking certain precautions which are not anticipated. That the fire accident was unexpected and appellant took all the necessary precautions to avoid fire accident. That steps were also taken by the appellant to control the fire accident. That the fire was unavoidable one and not due to any negligence on the part of the appellant. That as the fire accident has led to a financial loss and was not due to any negligence on the part of the appellant, therefore, a liberal view is required to be taken while allowing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and are reproduced below:- 5. Description of accident : On 31.3.2012 at about 12.30PM, the above referred coating process was in progress on Coating Machine No.1. During the said process, due to some reason the plastic film broke at the upper portion of the dryer and fell into the tray containing hot liquid solvent which then inflamed. As soon as the same was noticed by the workers/ labourers, they immediately informed the factory manager, Shri Rishi Ashok Seth, who immediately rushed to the accident spot along with a Fire Extinguisher in his hands and tried to extinguish the fire which took place in the solvent tray. But due to the pressure of the Fire Extinguished which was sprayed on the solvent tray, the inflamed solvent spilled from the tray in the surrounding area which also caught fire and subsequently took a huge form. On seeing the said situation, Shri Rishi Seth informed all the workers/ Labourers to immediately vacate the said factory. Thereafter, he informed the Sachin GIDC fire station about the said incidence and asked for help. Fire tankers from Sachin GIDC arrived the affected site at about 0100PM and initiated the onsite process of fire extingui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or safety measures, and so on and so forth. Even in cases of unavoidable accident it can always be contended, that the accident could be avoided by taking recourse of one or more measures. Thus, a bit liberal rather more practical approach is required to be taken in the matter. Of course, we quiet agree with the learned counsel, that mere accounting practice of the assessee, could not be considered for granting remission, under Rule 21, rather, only requirement of Rule 21 is, that the concerned authority should be satisfied that goods have been lost or destroyed, by natural causes or by unavoidable accident . 13. Then in very nature of things, contemplated by Rule 21, the aspect of satisfaction, about the destruction or loss of goods, by natural causes or unavoidable accident, is essentially a subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and that having been recorded by the learned Tribunal, it is a pure satisfaction of fact, altogether subjective. The findings recorded by the Tribunal have already been quoted above, which in our view leaves no manner of doubt that the learned Tribunal had independently recorded its satisfaction about the loss, or des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
