TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s belatedly intimated on 2-11-2012. The document enclosed to the said letter proves the fact regarding occurrence of the fire incidence in the factory of the appellant. Since the excisable goods have been destroyed in fire and the same have not been removed from the factory, it is of the view that payment of Central Excise duty cannot be fastened on such destroyed goods. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also not justified in view of the fact that goods have not been removed from the factory. However, since the appellant had not informed the Central Excise Authorities regarding the fire incidence took place in the factory, there is violation of the statutory provisions, for which imposition of penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on such destroyed goods. For non-payment of Central Excise duty, the Central Excise department initiated proceedings against the appellant for confirmation of the Central Excise duty liability along with interest and for imposition of penalty. The SCN culminated in the adjudication order dated 5-3-2013, confirming the proposals made therein. In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant suo motu claimed deduction of manufactured goods from their stocks without any intimation to the Department and also no intimation has been filed about the fire incidence so as to enable the Department to undertake necessary verification as stipulated under Rule 21 of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occurrence of such incidence, immediate action was not taken by the appellant in intimating the Department regarding such incidence, and the jurisdictional Range Superintendent was belatedly intimated on 2-11-2012. The document enclosed to the said letter proves the fact regarding occurrence of the fire incidence in the factory of the appellant. Since the excisable goods have been destroyed in fire and the same have not been removed from the factory, I am of the view that payment of Central Excise duty cannot be fastened on such destroyed goods. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also not justified in view of the fact that goods have not been removed from the factory. However, since the appellant had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
