2008 (5) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Goods destroyed during riots held that the setting ablaze of the factory by a mob during riots was an unavoidable accident revenue submission that the goods have not been lost or destroyed on account of any natural causes, is not accepted incase of unavoidable accidents, remission cannot be denied - demand confirmed before remission application was decided - in the absence of decision on the remission application, appellate authority was not justified in setting aside the demand

Summary

Issues involved:
- Rejection of remission claim by Commissioner
- Determination of unavoidable accident in the context of remission claim
- Appeal by Revenue against acceptance of remission claim by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:

1. Rejection of remission claim by Commissioner:
The judgment addresses the appeal filed by the assessee against the rejection of their remission claim by the Commissioner. The Commissioner based the rejection on the grounds that the cloth valued at Rs. 45 lakhs was lost during riots in Gujarat, but he deemed it not eligible for remission as the loss was due to a man-made situation. However, the Tribunal found that the setting ablaze of the factory by a large mob during the riots constituted an unavoidable accident. The Tribunal highlighted that the Rule in question pertains not only to goods lost by natural causes but also to goods destroyed due to unavoidable accidents. It was concluded that the appellant could not have prevented the incident, and therefore, the remission should have been granted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

2. Determination of unavoidable accident in the context of remission claim:
The Tribunal delved into the concept of an unavoidable accident in the context of the remission claim. It emphasized that the factory being set ablaze by a massive mob during the riots qualified as an unavoidable accident. The Tribunal noted the absence of discussion by the Commissioner on how the appellant could have prevented the incident or contributed to it. By interpreting the Rule to include goods destroyed due to unavoidable accidents, the Tribunal concluded that the factory's destruction was beyond the appellant's control, warranting the grant of remission. This analysis led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.

3. Appeal by Revenue against acceptance of remission claim by Commissioner (Appeals):
The judgment also addressed the appeal by the Revenue against the acceptance of the remission claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contended that the appellate authority should not have set aside the demand before deciding on the remission application. While acknowledging the technical point raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal found that since the appellant's appeal against the rejection of remission was allowed, the Revenue's appeal had become irrelevant. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, thereby disposing of both appeals in the aforementioned manner.