2017 (11) TMI 720 - HC - Central Excise

Goods destroyed in fire - Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellants claim on the basis of the report of the surveyor ignoring the report of the Inspector of the department itself? - Held that - The Tribunal has, in such facts and evidence recorded a finding of fact to confine the claim made by the assessee to the extent of value of goods destroyed as per the insurance claim. In the absence of any other finding of further loss of any other goods, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding remission of duty on goods destroyed in a fire accident.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appellant's claim for remission of duty on goods destroyed in a fire accident. The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim based on the surveyor's report while ignoring the report of the department's Inspector. The facts established a fire accident at the factory premises, with the dispute revolving around the quantity of goods destroyed and the consequent remission of duty due to the assessee.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed remission on a specific quantity of goods but rejected the claim on the remaining quantity. The only evidence presented was the insurance claim approved for a portion of the goods lost in the fire. The Adjudicating Authority noted the discrepancy in the claimed loss and the verified loss accepted by the Insurance Company. The appellant argued that the Central Excise Officer's initial report on the loss should be considered, but the Tribunal based its decision on the value of goods destroyed as per the insurance claim.

The Tribunal's finding was upheld as there was no evidence of further loss beyond the insurance claim. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal's decision was not erroneous given the lack of evidence supporting additional loss beyond the approved insurance claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the remission of duty based on the insurance claim value of the destroyed goods.