9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accident, through letter dated 15-6-1998. A show cause notice dated 22-7-1999 was issued to the appellant for rejection of the remission claim on the ground that the intimation of the fire was given by the appellant to the authorities belatedly. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad vide his order dated 18-10-2000 rejected the remission application filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the intimation of fire accident that took place on 16-3-1997 was given vide letter deted 17-3-1997, which was received by the authorities on 18-3-1997. As regards the fire accident that took place on 17-5-1997, intimation was given on 19-5-1997. She submits that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Jindal Polyester v. CCE, New Delhi as reported at 2003 (152) E.L.T. 228 (Tri. - Del.) and Plastikos Packaging v. CCE, Allahabad reported at 2001(128) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.-Del.). It is also her submission that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly mentioned that the remission application has been filed for raw material. It is her submission that they never claimed remission for the duty on raw material before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The learned JDR on the other hand submits that there is preliminary objection on the part of maintainability of this appeal. It is his submission that order of rejection of remission claim filed by the appellant is not an order passed by the adjudicating authority. He relies on the provision of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944." This would indicate that the order, which has been passed by the Commissioner while rejecting the remission claim, is passed by the adjudicating authority. Further, to my mind, any order or decision, due to which the assessee's right and liability is affected, is to be considered as an order and decision passed under provision of Section 2(a) and cannot be disputed at this point. As such, the preliminary objection raised by the learned JDR is not sustainable and the appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. 7. On the question of merits of the case, it is seen from the record that the appellant had intimated the authorities about the fire accidents, which took place on 16-3-97 and 17-5-97. Since those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that this proposition of law is totally unsustainable for the reason that the assessee was under tremendous pressure due to loss of properties. The finding of the Commissioner that fire took place on 17-5-1997, intimation was delayed even to police, is on wrong footing. If the Police officer found it fit to come on 18-5-97 for verification, cannot be held against the appellant. 9. As regards third ground taken by the Commissioner that the appellant had not taken precautionary measures for safety of the goods, inspite of the fact that the goods in question are prone for catching fire, I find that C.F.O. of the Fire Brigade has clearly indicated in his certificate that the fire was doused by Fire Brigade at the factory that was equipped w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
