9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise amounting to Rs. 5,52,989 leviable on goods that were claimed to have been lost/damaged by flood on 26th July, 2005. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the necessary prerequisites had all been complied with inasmuch as complaint had been filed with police authorities, intimation had been furnished to Central Excise authorities and that the insurance, claimed for Rs. 25.13 lakhs, was settled at Rs. 33.16 lakhs. The application was rejected by order dated 18th March, 2010 and, on seeking intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay through writ remedy, the matter was remanded back to the competent authority for placing the assessee on notice should there be any intent to reject the application. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Even so, we must dispose of the appeal. 6. It is seen that denial of the application was sought to be justified by citing failure to produce records pertaining to the goods in stock long after the decision was taken and, that too, on directions of the Hon'ble High Court. It is surprising that the competent authority choose to insist on production of records that were claimed to be unavailable and decided not to place on the report of the surveyor which was the basis for sanction of the insurance claim. Normally, insurance companies undertake extensive enquiries before releasing the payment attributable to such damage. Furthermore, with the appellant having complied with all the procedural requirements, the insistence upon unavailabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecide the quantum of claim that should be allowed. 9. Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is unambiguously clear that it is for the Commissioner of Central Excise to come to conclusion, based on his satisfaction and from the evidence of damage, about the extent to which the claim should be allowed. The impugned order has failed to do so. The damage that was effected by the floods is evident from the several records including complaint with the police authorities and the processing of the insurance claim. In the circumstances, the satisfaction mandated in Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be discountenanced. 10. We find that the original authority has failed to appreciate the circumstances in which the claim was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
