2004 (2) TMI 450 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of remission of duty on goods lost and destroyed due to heavy storm.
2. Requirement of verification regarding notification to the department for stocking goods in the open yard.
3. Verification of whether the appellants sought insurance claim on the damaged goods.

Issue 1: The judgment deals with the rejection of remission of duty on goods lost and destroyed due to a heavy storm. The Commissioner rejected the remission on the grounds that the appellants did not show sufficient precautions to avoid loss by natural causes or unavoidable accidents during handling or storage. The appellant, a manufacturer of ceramic sanitary wares, argued that they arranged the goods in an open yard after notifying the department and continued this method for several years. They claimed that heavy rain and storm caused the goods to collapse irretrievably, leading to a claim based on actual loss. The department did not dispute the amount of loss but raised concerns about the precautions taken by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the destruction was due to a natural cause, and if the manner of stocking goods in the open yard was verified and found to be consistent, the claim should be accepted. The matter was remanded to the original authority for reconsideration.

Issue 2: The need for verification regarding notification to the department for stocking goods in the open yard was raised during the proceedings. The department argued that this aspect needed verification to determine if the appellants had informed the department about their stocking methods. The Tribunal acknowledged this requirement for verification and directed the original authority to reexamine the matter within six months, providing an opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

Issue 3: The issue of whether the appellants sought an insurance claim on the damaged goods was also brought up during the proceedings. The department raised an objection regarding the appellants benefiting from insurance. The Tribunal noted that this aspect needed verification and instructed the original authority to conduct a de novo consideration of the claim, including verifying the insurance claim aspect. The matter was to be readjudicated within six months with a fresh opportunity for the appellants to be heard, ultimately allowing the appeal by remand for further review and decision.