1989 (8) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad regarding duty demand on sugar destroyed in a fire accident.
- Claim for duty remission under Rule 49 based on unavoidable nature of the fire accident.
- Dispute over evidence presented to establish the genuineness of the fire accident and duty remission claim.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, regarding the duty demand on 16,959.17 Quintals of white sugar destroyed in a fire accident at the appellant's factory. The Collector confirmed the duty demand, leading to the present appeal.

2. The main contention of the appellant, a sugar manufacturer, was that they promptly informed the authorities about the fire accident, sought permission to transfer damaged sugar, and reprocessed a significant quantity of the damaged sugar with due permission. The appellant claimed duty remission under Rule 49 for the sugar destroyed by fire, arguing that the fire accident was unavoidable and genuine.

3. The appellant's advocate highlighted that various authorities were informed about the fire accident on the same day, and significant efforts were made to salvage and reprocess the damaged sugar. The Insurance Survey Report, panchnama, and correspondences with the insurance company supported the genuineness of the fire accident and the duty remission claim. However, these documents were not presented before the Collector during adjudication.

4. The learned SDR contended that the lack of presentation of these crucial documents before the Collector undermined the evidence supporting the fire accident's genuineness and the duty remission claim. The SDR emphasized that duty remission under Rule 49 must be substantiated with satisfactory evidence and proof of the fire accident's authenticity.

5. After considering the arguments and perusing the available records, the Tribunal found that the evidence, including the Insurance Survey Report and other documents, supported the appellant's claim of a genuine fire accident and duty remission. However, since these documents were not placed before the Collector during adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

6. The Tribunal directed the appellants to produce all evidence, including the final settlement of the Insurance claim, before the Collector for a new adjudication. The Collector was instructed to reconsider the case in light of the evidence now presented before the Tribunal, allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case.

7. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for de novo consideration by the Collector, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence in determining the duty remission claim based on the genuineness of the fire accident.