2008 (8) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Claim for remission of duty in respect of goods destroyed by fire. Interpretation of Rule 49 regarding remission of duty.

Issue 1 - Claim for remission of duty in respect of goods destroyed by fire:
The case pertains to a claim for remission of duty for goods destroyed by fire in a factory. The impugned order acknowledged the occurrence of fire and destruction of goods but disallowed the claim citing negligence on the part of the assessee as the reason for the goods' destruction.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of Rule 49 regarding remission of duty:
The appellant argued that the Commissioner exceeded the scope of Rule 49, which allows for remission, by considering factors beyond whether the goods were lost or destroyed by "natural causes." The appellant contended that the sufficiency of fire prevention measures is not within the rule's purview, as satisfaction of the Commissioner is only required concerning the cause of loss or destruction being "by natural causes."

Upon review of the legal provision in question, it was found that the rule explicitly states that the manufacturer must pay duty for goods not accounted for in the specified manner or not proven to be lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents during holding or storage. The rule does not mandate an assessment of the preventability of natural causes, contrary to what the impugned order attempted to do.

Therefore, it was concluded that the impugned order went beyond the rule's scope, and as such, it was set aside. The appeal was allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants.