2016 (11) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Incidence of fire in the factory - remission of duty involved on the semi-finished goods and finished goods - necessary intimation on incidence of fire in the factory of the Appellant was not submitted to the department; whereby the department was not in a position to assess the extent of damage and duty involved on damaged finished goods - Held that - I have seen the copy of the letter dated 22.10.2006 intimating the incidence of fire, addressed to the Superintendent is enclosed in the appeal paper book, which the department is disputing being not received by them. Keeping aside the said disputed fact for a while, I find that the other available evidences enclosed with the appeal paper book, if considered, it cannot be denied that there was an incidence of fire in the factory premises of the Appellant on 21/22.10.2006. Also, an insurance claim has been filed by the appellant against the damages and their claim was considered. Also, from the evidences on record, nowhere, it is forthcoming that after the incidence of fire, the department has issued demand notice for recovery of duty on the goods destroyed in the said fire, being failed to receive any such intimation from the Appellant. In the result, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the evidences afresh and arrive at a conclusion on the issue of remission of duty. I also find that appellant had claimed remission of duty on both semi-finished and finished goods and I am not expressing any opinion on the eligibility of same - reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellant - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIO rejecting remission application for duty on goods destroyed in fire due to lack of intimation to department within 24 hours.
- Dispute over whether intimation of fire incident was timely and properly communicated.
- Evidence presented by the appellant to establish the fire incident and loss suffered.
- Revenue's argument on non-compliance with prescribed procedure for intimation.
- Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration based on available evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a challenge against the Order-In-Original (OIO) rejecting the remission application for duty on goods destroyed in a fire incident due to the alleged failure to provide timely intimation to the department within 24 hours. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PP Bags and other goods, experienced a fire in their factory resulting in significant damage to raw materials, semi-finished, and finished goods. The Commissioner rejected the remission application, leading to the appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant, represented by Shri Hardik Modh, argued that despite providing various documents confirming the fire incident on 21.10.2006, the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the lack of timely intimation to the Range Superintendent. The appellant contended that they did inform the department promptly and submitted evidence such as police Panchnama, fire department certificate, and payment details to support their claim for remission. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by Dr. Jeetesh Nagori, emphasized the non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for intimation as a crucial point.

In the judgment, the Tribunal, per Dr. D.M. Misra, acknowledged the Commissioner's basis for rejection but noted discrepancies regarding the receipt of the intimation letter by the department. Despite the disputed communication, the Tribunal found the evidence submitted by the appellant compelling, indicating the occurrence of the fire incident and subsequent actions taken. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted that no demand notice was issued by the department post the fire incident, suggesting a lack of communication regarding duty recovery. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment based on the available evidence, emphasizing the need for a thorough review and granting the appellant a fair hearing opportunity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, refraining from expressing a definitive opinion on the remission eligibility but directing the Commissioner to reevaluate the appellant's claim on its merits. The judgment kept all issues open for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive review process and ensuring procedural fairness in the decision-making.