9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght between the 17th and 18th day of August, 1975 a devastating fire broke out in the said factory causing great loss and damage to raw materials, goods in process of manufacture, finished goods and machineries. This incident and the loss were duly intimated to the local Excise authorities, who instantly verified the stock, assessed the loss of the finished stock with reference to entries in G.R.I of closing balance of 17-8-1985. It amounted to Rs. .5,13,191.80. The goods were insured with three Insurance Companies and a total amount of Rs. 5,13,191.80P was received from them by the appellants. The Supdt. Customs Central Excise, Naharkatia, demanded a payment of Rs. 86,184.20P on the ground that the amount sanctioned by the Insurance Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned SDR has not disputed that the goods were consigned to the fire in the factory premises. However, he would like to rely on the proviso to Rule 49(1) of Central Excise Rules. 4. It appears that the demand raised agaisnt the appellant was that since they have received an amount of more than Rs. 5 lakhs from the Insurance Company, which covered the Central Excise duty also, therefore, they should pay the same. 5. The appellants have contended that the amount paid by the Insurance Company did not include the Central Excise duty and other charges. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the certificates to be found at Annexures F-1, F-2 and F-3. The three certificates were issued by the three Insurance companies viz. Oriental Fire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as yet become chargeable or payable. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Collectors is set aside, as already announced in the open Court. 10. [Per : S.K. Bhatnagarj]. - While aggreeing with the learned Brother Shri Prasad, I would like to add a few observations. 11. I find that the submissions of the learned advocate are entirely correct and the department s case has no legs to stand on. 12. The Order of the learned Collector is in fact wrong, both on facts and in law. Indeed, it appears that the learned Collector has perhaps not applied his mind fully to the facts of the case and the relevant law. 13. The crucial fact admitted by both the sides in this case is that the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
