2007 (11) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Comm(A) while rejecting remission has clearly mentioned that this is an order, which can be appealed u/s 35B, if felt aggrieved - order, due to which the assessee s right & liability is affected, is to be considered passed u/s 2(a)CEA so impugned appeal is maintainable before tribunal remission can t be denied mere on basis that revenue authorities weren t informed about fire accident(because of holiday on that day) with in 24 hrs, if assessee had informed police & fire brigade immediately

Issues:
1. Rejection of remission application for finished goods due to fire accident.
2. Timeliness of intimation of fire accidents.
3. Maintainability of the appeal.
4. Merits of the case regarding the rejection of the remission claim.
5. Compliance with Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. Requirement of intimation within 24 hours.
7. Executive instructions vs. provisions of law.
8. Delay in submission and condonation of delay.
9. Precautionary measures for safety of goods.
10. Applicability of Division Bench decisions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a remission application for finished goods destroyed in a fire accident. The appellant had filed the remission application due to the destruction caused by fire accidents on specific dates. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs rejected the remission claim, leading to the appeal.

2. The timeliness of intimation of fire accidents was a crucial issue. The appellant argued that due to holidays and practical constraints, they informed the authorities within a reasonable timeframe. The Commissioner upheld the rejection based on the failure to inform within 24 hours, while the appellant contended that this requirement was not supported by Rule 49 and Section 147.

3. The maintainability of the appeal was challenged by the JDR, questioning whether the order rejecting the remission claim constituted an order by the adjudicating authority. However, the Tribunal found that the order affected the appellant's rights and liabilities, thus making it appealable under Section 35B.

4. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal analyzed the circumstances of the fire accidents and the actions taken by the appellant. It was observed that the rejection solely based on the delay in intimation was not legally sound. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's reasoning and emphasized the importance of legal provisions over executive instructions.

5. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's situation warranted understanding and that the rejection based on the 24-hour requirement was unjustified. The lack of immediate action by the authorities after receiving intimation was also noted, questioning the basis of the rejection.

6. The issue of delay in submission and the need for condonation was addressed, with the Tribunal finding the appellant's reasons valid given the circumstances. Additionally, the precautionary measures taken by the appellant for the safety of goods were recognized through the Fire Brigade's confirmation of the firefighting system at the factory.

7. The Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision to support its findings, concluding that the impugned order of the Commissioner was unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

← Previous Next →