2016 (11) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 & 27 - fire accident - 1874.500 kg. P.U. Foam blocks completely destroyed - Held that - no finding against the appellant of any contumacious conduct, negligence or operating of their factory without proper consent as required under the law s - penalty imposed set aside - appeal allowed. Remission claim - levy of duty - Held that - there is no dispute as to the occurrence of the fire in the factory of the appellant - the rejection of remission claim is without any justified reason - appeal allowed. Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Rule 25 & 27 confirmed
2. Dispute against the levy of duty post rejection of remission claim

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of P.U. Foam, appealed against the penalty imposed under Rule 25 & 27, confirmed in the Order-in-appeal dated 25.04.2008. The incident involved a fire in the factory resulting in the destruction of 1874.500 kg. P.U. Foam blocks. The Excise Authority found the finished goods stock nil and the stock of foam blocks lost in fire. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty and penalty under Rule 25 and 27. The appellant contested, stating they informed the Fire Department promptly, reversed Cenvat Credit, and applied for remission of duty. The demand was confirmed, observing the appellant's failure to apply for remission before the show cause notice. The Commissioner rejected the remission claim, leading to the confirmation of the demand and imposition of a penalty of &8377; 31,758.

2. In another appeal, the dispute arose from the rejection of the remission claim leading to the levy of duty. The appellant produced a Tribunal order related to a similar fire incident, where the rejection of remission claim was set aside. The Tribunal allowed this appeal based on the previous order, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original demanding duty of &8377; 1,66,053 along with an equal amount of penalty. The Tribunal found no contumacious conduct or negligence on the part of the appellant and set aside the imposed penalty.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed with consequential benefits, as there was no finding of contumacious conduct or negligence by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed in both cases, providing relief to the appellant in the disputes regarding duty and remission claims.