2004 (8) TMI 704 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Claim for remission of duty due to goods destroyed by fire. Interpretation of Rule 49 regarding remission eligibility.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the case involved a claim for remission of duty concerning goods destroyed by fire in a factory. The impugned order did not contest the occurrence of the fire or the destruction of the goods but disallowed the remission claim citing negligence on the part of the assessee as the reason for the destruction. The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of Rule 49, which allows for remission, by considering the adequacy of fire prevention measures beyond the requirement of the rule. The Tribunal reviewed the legal provision of Rule 49, emphasizing that the satisfaction of the Commissioner was necessary only concerning whether the goods were lost or destroyed by "natural causes." The rule does not mandate an investigation into the preventability of the natural cause, as done in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order went beyond the rule's scope and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief for the appellants. The judgment provides a clear interpretation of the rule and establishes the limitations on the Commissioner's discretion in granting remission of duty in such cases.