9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the Commissioner of Central Excise vide fax message on 28-7-98 that due to short circuit, a fire accident had taken place in that sugar godown No. 21 having stock of 90,489 qtls. of M-31 grade sugar. Simultaneously, they also informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of this fire accident. Subsequently, the Inspector incharge, in his visit to the spot of accident on 1-8-98 verified and confirmed the fire having broken out in the godown No. 21 of the party due to short circuiting. On 28-7-98, the party requested for shifting of sugar from godown No. 21 to Godown No. 19. This permission was granted by the Range Officer with the direction to store the bags separately and inform the progress. The party vide letter dt. 3-8-98 infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dt. 24-8-2001 has rejected the claim for remission of duty on 4,975 qtls. of sugar. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner. I have heard Shri S.N. Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me. The facts as stated in the order of the Commissioner are not in dispute. The Commissioner in his order has observed as follows :- I agree with the party s contention that the fire occurred on 28-7-98 in their godown No. 21. I find from the records of the case that the Supdt. of Central Excise permitted the shifting of bags to godown No. 19 on 28-7-98. Only 786 bags were shifted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have suffered a net loss of 4,975 qtls. Sugar. It is, therefore, clear that the party submitted a report of actual loss on their own after a long gap of 4 months 21 days and the remission claim on account of loss due to fire accident was submitted without proper verification, by the Central Excise Officers. Whenever the officers visited the premises for verification the factory management did not get the damaged stock verified by explaining that the work of transfer/shifting was in progress. Evidently the party failed to show to the satisfaction of the proper officer the quantum of actual loss claimed by them as envisaged under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also observed that Surveyor s report No. DR/5119(D)/54/9899), dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
