2006 (3) TMI 653 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Order-in-Original denying remission of duty for goods destroyed in fire.

Analysis:
The appellants contested Order-in-Original No. 05/2005, which refused their claim for remission of duty following goods destruction in fire. The Commissioner's rejection was based on the appellants' alleged failure to provide evidence and document support for their claim, lack of breakdown of settlement amounts from the insurance company, and absence of clear separation showing duty portion in the settlement. However, the appellants did produce relevant documents related to the fire incidents and goods destruction, supporting their remission claim. Notably, the Commissioner acknowledged the retrieval of some goods after the second fire, with payment of Excise duty, leaving a balance for remission. The Commissioner's decision was influenced by the Police Mahazar and Fire Brigade Report.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had not utilized M/s Mysore Rubber Pvt. Ltd.'s premises for manufacturing the destroyed goods, as the manufacturing license was in their name. The Tribunal deemed the manufacturing location irrelevant to the remission claim, as the appellants had their own manufacturing premises. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's grounds for rejecting the remission claim untenable. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a contradiction in the Commissioner's order, particularly in acknowledging the retrieval of goods post-fire and payment of Excise duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, granting the remission of duty for the remaining destroyed goods and allowing the appeal with any necessary consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the appellants' rightful claim for remission of duty for goods destroyed in fire, despite the Commissioner's flawed reasoning and contradictory findings. The Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the appellants' compliance with relevant regulations and the unjust denial of their remission claim, ultimately rectifying the situation by granting the requested relief.