2017 (11) TMI 875 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - whether there was any negligence on the part of appellant or not? - Held that - appellant has taken all due precautions required to avoid any sort of break of fire in the factory - The finding of Original Authority that fire was on account of negligence is without any basis - remission of duty allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remission of Excise duty on goods destroyed in a fire.
2. Demand of Central Excise duty on goods destroyed in a fire.
3. Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods damaged in the fire.

Issue 1: Remission of Excise duty on goods destroyed in a fire

The appellant applied for remission of Excise duty on goods destroyed in a fire, citing electrical short circuit as the cause. The Original Authority denied the remission, stating that negligence of the assessee was the cause of the fire, which is not eligible for remission. The appellant contended that they had taken necessary precautions and maintained firefighting equipment regularly. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed taken all due precautions to prevent the fire, and the fire was not due to avoidable factors. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Original Authority's order and allowed the remission of duty applied for by the appellant.

Issue 2: Demand of Central Excise duty on goods destroyed in a fire

In a separate appeal arising from the same fire incident, the appellants were issued a show cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty on goods destroyed in the fire. The demand also included Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess. The Original Authority confirmed the demands, including Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods damaged in the fire. The appellant argued that the demand on semi-finished goods was not sustainable as they had not reached the excisable stage. The Tribunal agreed and set aside the Central Excise duty on semi-finished goods, stating that duty is payable only after the goods become excisable. Additionally, the demand for Cenvat credit on capital goods was set aside as per the Cenvat credit Rules, which require recovery only upon removal from the factory. Thus, the Tribunal modified the Original Authority's order and allowed the appeal in this regard.

Final Decision:
Both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, granting the remission of Excise duty on destroyed goods and setting aside the demands for Central Excise duty on semi-finished goods and Cenvat credit on capital goods damaged in the fire.