1997 (1) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Remission of duty on sugar destroyed in a fire accident at a sugar factory.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, a sugar factory, had a significant quantity of sugar destroyed or damaged due to a fire incident. The appellant sought remission of duty on the sugar destroyed, but the request was initially denied by the Assistant Collector and later confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Upon appeal to the Tribunal, the case was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the evidence regarding the cause of the fire. The Collector (Appeals) subsequently rejected the remission claim, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

The advocate for the appellant argued that the cause of the fire was uncertain, citing a report by the insurance company that mentioned possibilities like short circuit, smoking by an employee, or spontaneous combustion of sugar due to wet bags. The advocate contended that these were speculative statements and did not conclusively establish negligence on the part of the appellant. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision to support this argument.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative highlighted an interim report by the insurance company attributing the fire to spontaneous combustion of sugar, which could have been prevented by proper storage. It was argued that the decision to grant remission was at the discretion of the proper officer, who found no grounds for remission in this case. A precedent from the Andhra Pradesh High Court was cited to support this position.

The Tribunal noted that while the interim report was not available, the final survey report indicated spontaneous combustion in gunny bags as a possible cause of the fire. However, the Tribunal considered this a tentative statement rather than a conclusive determination. The Tribunal also referenced communication from the insurance company, which did not definitively establish negligence on the appellant's part. Various factors, such as the lack of evidence suggesting clandestine removal of sugar or illegal activity, the prompt reporting of the fire incident, and the subsequent recovery of damaged sugar, led the Tribunal to conclude that the fire was likely due to an unavoidable accident. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant's claim for remission of duty on the destroyed sugar.

Regarding the discretion of the proper officer in granting remission, the Tribunal clarified that the discretion must be exercised in cases of goods lost or destroyed by unavoidable accidents. The Tribunal directed the Proper Officer to determine the quantity of sugar destroyed in the fire incident for which remission should be granted, emphasizing that the discretion should be in favor of the appellant in such circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, sending the matter back for a decision solely on the issue of the quantity of sugar destroyed in the fire accident for which remission should be provided.