2008 (12) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - damage to finished goods due to a fire - Surveyor of the Insurance company has clearly mentioned that the fire was caused by the cinders which must have flown from the nearby fields - It is quite clear that the fire was accidental in view of the explanation on the panchnama also which says that when a worker noticed the fire immediately action was taken to douse the fire. The circumstances of occurring of the fire and extinguishing of the same explained in the panchnama supports the case of the party - Thus there is no doubt that the fire occurred because of an accident. As regard the second point that CENVAT Credit was not reversed, in view of the Larger Bench decision cited by the appellants, the same need not be reversed. As regards insurance claim, after verification of the value in the invoices, I am satisfied that the insurance claim does not include the excise duty portion. Remission allowable

Summary

Issues:
Application for remission of duty due to fire damage rejection by Commissioner.

Analysis:
The appellants filed an application for remission of duty following damage to their finished goods due to a fire incident, which was rejected by the Commissioner. The appeal was made on three grounds. Firstly, the Commissioner's decision that CENVAT Credit had not been reversed on inputs was challenged, citing a Larger Bench decision in M/s. Grasim Industries. Secondly, the appellants were accused of failing to provide evidence that the goods were lost in an unavoidable accident or due to a natural cause. The appellants argued that the fire was caused by flying cinders from nearby fields, supported by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company's report. Thirdly, the appellants were unable to demonstrate that their insurance claim did not cover the Central Excise portion of the duty. The appellants presented invoices showing that the assessable value did not exceed the value of the goods destroyed.

The Revenue, represented by the ld. SDR, contended that the invoices needed verification and that the appellants did not have adequate fire prevention safeguards in place, implying that the loss was not due to unavoidable circumstances.

Upon considering the submissions, the Member (T) noted that the fire was caused by cinders from nearby fields, a common occurrence during agricultural activities. The explanation provided was deemed credible, especially as immediate action was taken to extinguish the fire. The circumstances surrounding the fire's occurrence and extinguishing, as detailed in the panchnama, supported the appellants' case, despite the Director's initial uncertainty about the fire's cause. Regarding the CENVAT Credit issue, following the Larger Bench decision cited by the appellants, it was determined that reversal was not necessary. After verifying the invoice values, it was established that the insurance claim did not cover the excise duty portion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.