9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/- destroyed on fire accident which occurred on 12-7-2005 was rejected. 1.2 Appeal No. 552/07 is against the order of the Commissioner No. 13/T/REMISSION/VAPI/2006 dated 28-2-2007 by which remission of duty sought for amounting to Rs. 2,85,104/- under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 relating to finished goods valued Rs. 17,81,900/- destroyed on fire accident which occurred on 17-11-2004 was rejected. 1.3 Appeal No. 553/07 is against the decision of the Commissioner communicated by Asst. Commissioner vide letter No. V/Misc-105/T/06/2062 dated 23-2-2007 by which remission of duty sought for amounting to Rs. 2,91,181/- under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 relating to finished goods valued Rs. 16,61,092/- destroyed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the submissions from both sides. We find that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of chemicals which are undisputedly is inflammable in nature. We have not been shown any evidence that the fire accident has been caused due to deliberate action or due to negligence on the part of the appellant. There have been no such allegations in the show cause notice nor any findings of the Commissioner to that effect. The remission has been denied on the ground that the interest on the Cenvat credit reversed has not been paid by the appellant. We find that it has been held in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries cited supra that no reversal of Cenvat credit itself is envisaged. The relevant portion of the findings of the Tribunal is repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Inalsa Ltd. (supra) in this regard. The issue to the Larger Bench is answered in the above terms and the matter be placed before the Regular Bench. 5. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the ld. Consultant and hold that the appeals No. 551/07 552/07 deserves to be allowed. As regards, the appeal No. 553, no speaking order has been issued by the Commissioner and therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 23-2-2007 as communicated by the Asst. Commissioner and remand the same for de novo consideration by the Commissioner after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 6. Appeals No. 551/07 552/07 are allowed with consequential relief. Appeal No. 553/07 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
