2019 (6) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Rule 147 (for remission of duty) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - HELD THAT - Even though it is claimed that the appellant has submitted copies of all supporting documents to the claim such as FIR made before the police authorities regarding the fire incidents; the report of the insurance company indicating the loss of goods in the factory as well as insurance claim paid and settled by the insurance company. There is no reference to such documents in the order dated 24/2/ 2009 passed by the Commissioner. There is no option but to remand the matter yet one more time to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for de novo adjudication taking into consideration all the supporting documents submitted by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of remission of duty claim under Rule 147 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to fire accidents in the appellant's factory. Failure to consider supporting documents, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and lack of clear findings by lower authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of the remission of duty claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II under Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, following fire accidents in the appellant's factory.
2. The appellant's factory faced fire accidents on multiple occasions, resulting in the loss of goods. The Commissioner rejected the remission application without considering relevant documents, such as the FIR, insurance claims, and Fire Brigade Report, submitted by the appellant.
3. The appellant contended that the rejection was a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as the Commissioner failed to review the supporting documents and additional submissions provided, leading to a lack of clear findings in the decision-making process.
4. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel highlighted the submission of crucial documents to the Departmental Authorities, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment based on the evidence already available with the department.
5. The Departmental Representative defended the Commissioner's decision, stating that the appellant failed to produce corroborative documents supporting the claim of goods lost in the fire accidents, and there was uncertainty regarding the receipt of additional submissions by the Department.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, noted the absence of clear findings on why the remission application was rejected and the failure to reference the crucial supporting documents submitted by the appellant in the Commissioner's order.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for a fresh adjudication, directing a thorough review of all supporting documents provided by the appellant, including those submitted with the letter dated 2/4/2004.
8. The Commissioner was instructed to conduct de novo proceedings promptly, ensuring effective communication with the appellant and issuing a decision within two months from the receipt of the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the urgency of resolving the long-pending matter.