9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order] - The appellant has filed this appeal against the rejection of their claim for remission of duty on tableware/kitchenware which were damaged due to heavy rain. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of glass and glassware and were availing Cenvat credit on the input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The appellants fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial used in the manufacture of damaged goods reversed nor the Central Excise duty involved on the finished goods have been paid by the appellant. 4. The learned Advocate further submitted that it is not in dispute that there was heavy rain on 6-9-2003 and despite reasonable precaution taken by the appellant, their items being glass-ware were damaged. For delay in informing to the department, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he placed reliance on Sika Qualcrate Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata III - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.- Kolkata) wherein the appellant made a remission application on 19-12-2000 as the flood occurred on 23-9-2000. In that case, the Tribunal has held that "loss was not in dispute and non-recovery of duty from insurance company was also not in dispute. Remission claim filed by the appellant is justifiable". He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es". 5. On the other hand the learned DR reiterated the impugned order. 6. On careful hearing of both sides, I find that it is undisputed fact that the goods have been destroyed due to heavy rain. The learned Commissioner has held that the appellant has not taken precaution to safeguard their goods but he has failed to appreciate the fact that heavy rain took place on that day and did not point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput were not used in the manufacture of finished goods, CENVAT credit is available to the appellant. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. It cannot be termed that the appellants were negligent in safeguarding their goods and nobody will invite rain to destroy their goods. 7. With these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
