9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 471 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Destruction of goods in fire - sugar destroyed - Held that - fire was on account of electric short circuit. The same definitely could have been avoided in the same manner in which every fire incident on account of short-circuiting are capable of being avoidable. Every fire incident can admittedly be avoided and that does not mean that the same has occurred on account of unavoidable reasons. In which case no fire accident would get covered by the expression unavoidable circumstances . As such, the rejection of remission claim of the appellant was not justified - appeal allowed.
Issues: Remission of duty in respect of sugar destroyed due to fire.
In this case, the main issue revolves around the remission of duty concerning sugar destroyed in a fire incident at the appellant's company. The Commissioner rejected the remission application, citing that the fire was avoidable due to the appellant's failure to take proper precautions regarding lighting in the factory. The appellant argued that the fire was not a result of negligence, as evidenced by the insurance settlement for an electric short circuit. The Tribunal acknowledged that fire accidents typically result from a lack of precautions but noted that every fire incident, including short circuits, could be avoided. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the remission claim was unjustified, as the fire was not due to unavoidable circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to remit the duty for the damaged and destroyed goods. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. This judgment highlights the importance of taking necessary precautions to prevent fire incidents and the significance of establishing the cause of such incidents in determining liability for duty remission. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for a thorough assessment of the circumstances leading to the destruction of goods in fire-related incidents before denying remission claims.
|
