2004 (3) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of remission of duty on sugar destroyed in a fire.
2. Interpretation of the cause of the fire and liability for duty.
3. Inconsistency between findings of fact and the conclusion reached by the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the disallowance of remission of duty on sugar destroyed in a fire at the appellants' godown. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner initially disallowed the remission, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision, citing the duty of the manufacturer to ensure safety measures to protect goods. The aggrieved party then appealed against this order.

2. The lower appellate authority acknowledged that the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit, leading to the destruction of the sugar. However, it attributed the accident to the carelessness of the party, thereby denying the remission of duty. The appellant's counsel argued that the lower authority's findings were inconsistent with this conclusion, as no accident can be solely attributed to carelessness. The party was eligible for remission under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since the goods were destroyed in a fire due to an electrical short circuit.

3. The Tribunal found the lower authority's decision to be inconsistent with the facts established regarding the cause of the fire and the destruction of the goods. As the fire was clearly due to an electrical short circuit, the remission application should have been allowed. The impugned order disallowing remission was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the admissibility of remission under the Central Excise Rules in such circumstances.