9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 866 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - Destruction due to fire - Held that - Every fire accident including the present one could have been avoided in the same manner in which every fire incident or accident could have been or are capable of being avoidable. - it is well settled that nobody intentionally invites such accidents and they happen on account of various natural causes. - appellant is eligible for claim of remission of duty as the case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2008 (10) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN) and the Tribunal s decision in the case of M. Kumar Udyog (P) Ltd. (2013 (12) TMI 223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of remission claim for duty on goods destroyed in fire. 2. Interpretation of "unavoidable accidents" in the context of fire due to electrical short circuit. 3. Comparison of findings in the present case with relevant judgments. 4. Eligibility of appellant for remission claim based on legal precedents. Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of remission claim for duty on goods destroyed in fire The appellant, engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, filed an appeal against the rejection of their remission claim for duty on goods destroyed in a fire. The fire, caused by a short circuit near a reaction vessel, led to the destruction of raw material, finished goods, and machinery. Despite debiting the Cenvat Credit under protest, the remission application for duty on finished goods was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, citing non-fulfillment of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the present appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of "unavoidable accidents" in the context of fire due to electrical short circuit The main contention revolved around whether the fire, originating from an electrical short circuit, could be deemed avoidable or unavoidable. The appellant argued that the fire was unavoidable, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd., emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "unavoidable accidents." They relied on the principle that no fire accident could be entirely unavoidable, as every fire incident could theoretically have been prevented. The Commissioner's observation regarding the lack of simultaneous efforts to extinguish the fire while prioritizing human life over goods protection was challenged by the appellant, citing the Tribunal's precedent in Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. Issue 3: Comparison of findings in the present case with relevant judgments The appellant further supported their case by referencing the Tribunal's decision in Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., which highlighted that most accidents result from a lack of precautions and could have been avoided. They argued that the rejection of the remission claim was unjustified, as the fire due to a short circuit fell under "unavoidable accidents." Additionally, the appellant cited the Tribunal's ruling in M. Kumar Udyog Private Ltd., which upheld a similar remission claim based on a fire caused by short circuits. These judgments were crucial in demonstrating the appellant's eligibility for the remission claim. Issue 4: Eligibility of appellant for remission claim based on legal precedents After considering the arguments presented, the tribunal held in favor of the appellant, stating that they were eligible for the remission of duty. The decision was supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Tribunal in similar cases, emphasizing the interpretation of "unavoidable accidents" in the context of fires caused by electrical short circuits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief as per the law. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant precedents, and the final decision in favor of the appellant.
|
