9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00.00 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said order was passed holding that their non-filing of an application for remission of duty to the Central Excise Authority after excisable goods had been destroyed due to fire accident tantamounts to suppression of material facts regarding loss of excisable goods. It was observed that the main intention for such suppression was to evade appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellants were represented by Shri Bisweswar Maitra, learned Advocate when the appeal was posted for hearing. He submitted that it had been wrongly alleged that they had not filed an intimation with the Departmental Authorities about the fire accident and the damage to the materials. Actually, they had sent th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal be allowed and the duty demand and the imposition of penalty set aside. 2. Shri A. Choudhuri, learned Departmental Representative replied to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. He submitted that the Department came to know about the fire accident in the Mill premises only from their published Annual Report. The appellants had not intimated the same to the Departmental authorities. No doubt, as per the first proviso to Rule 49(1) no duty may be demanded in respect of goods shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident during handling or storage in store-room or approved premises. But in the present case there was no scope for the departmental off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visits the place frequently for export cargo work. It is quite odd that the appellants did not bring the fact to the notice of the officer posted in their factory or deputed for export cargo work. The Department s disclaimer about the intimation accords with their conduct in not having visited the Mills for checking and assessing the extent of damage and its fall-out on Central Excise duty. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, there is no dispute by the Department about the fact of the fire accident. The only reason why the proceedings have been launched is that they had not intimated to the Departmental Authorities the fire accident. Though, as pointed out by Shri Choudhuri, the Sarada Plywood factory case is distinguishable fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in terms of proviso to Rule 9(1)." I respectfully adopt the basic reasoning in the above finding, relating to the effect of Rule 49(1). I would proceed further and say that the first proviso thereunder, will require the manufacturer to pay the duty leviable on any goods which are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident during handling or storage. From the scheme of Rule 49 it is obvious that it applies to finished goods which are excisable. It is the contention of the appellants that what was damaged was not any finished goods but in-process material. No discussion is there in the order in this submission. It is not that the same was considered and rejected. Instead, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
