9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for goods destroyed in fire under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appellant s factory situated at Noida, is registered with the Central Excise Department, suffered a fire accident on 29/10/2006. The fire started in the morning hrs at about 8:30 AM. Since the said date was a factory holiday and there was no other staff except the security staff, who informed the Fire Brigade Office over Telephone. An F.I.R. was also lodged with the local Police Station. Further, the occurrence of fire was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Central excise, Noida and the range Superintendent on 03/11/2006. The S.H.O., Surajpur submitted detailed report of fire to the Superintendent of Police on 08th November, 2006. As per report of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace long back and the intimation to the fire Department was made very late owing to which fire spread all over the factory and heavy damage was done. Had the intimation been received in time, the heavy damage could have been avoided. Further, observed that although FIR was lodged but police authorities have not submitted their report of investigation. In absence of police report, the connivance of the appellant or any other mischief on their part cannot be ruled out. It was further observed that non-compliance of mandatory safety norms appears to be reason for the fire. Accordingly, it was concluded that the loss of goods cannot be considered on account of natural causes or unavoidable accident and accordingly the claim was rejected. 4. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time, other than the security guard there were no other staffs, which cannot lead to adverse inference on the part of the appellant. 5. The learned Counsel further states that the appellant unit had imported capital goods under the EPCG scheme. The appellant had also applied for waiver of export obligation of the balance EO due to fire in the factory, which resulted in total loss of building, plant and machinery as well as the raw materials, work in progress and finished goods. The appellant had approached the Director General Foreign Trade vide application dated 04/08/2008 for waiver of export obligation on account of the same fire accident in the factory. The appellant s case was considered by the EPCG committee comprising of DGFT, an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he acceptance of the accident of fire and loss by various, Government Authorities like the EPCG committee and the BIFR may be considered for allowing the remission claim under Rule 21 of CER, 2002. 6. The learned A.R. for revenue has relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the records, I find that the learned Commissioner have erred in holding that the loss is not due to unavoidable accident. On going through the fire report, I find that the said report certifies that the fire was accidental, caused due to electric short-circuit. I also find from the fire report that there is no adverse comment in the nature that the appellant was operating their factory without consent or no objection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
