9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Pad. V.V. Patil SSK Ltd., Pravaranagar holding C.Ex. Registration No. AAAAP0848AXM001 is a manufacturer of excisable goods i.e. sugar, molasses etc. falling under Chapter H.No. 1701, 1703 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 23-2-2006 at 12.30 pm the fire took place in sugar godown No. 19 of the assessee s factory. As per permission of Supdt. Central Excise Pravaranagar range for reprocessing of 12687 bags vide their letter No. Pravara/VVP/Sugar-fire/06 dated 2-3-2006, they have completed the reprocessing of 12687 bags on 25-3-2006, actual weight of 12687 bags found to be 11589.54 quintals i.e. 1097.46 quintals reprocessing loss valued of Rs. 19,21,652/- variety S-30 grade sugar from the stock of 2004-05 season. The assessee filed remission application on 30-1-2007 for central excise duty Rs. 74,290/- cess Rs. 15,364/- + E. Cess Rs. 1793/- Total 91447/-. The assessee have intimated that total sugar loss is 1097.46 qtls. and upon which they have reversed Cenvat Credit Rs. 2371/- and E. Cess Rs. 38/- on 12-1-2007. 2.1 As per the provision of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 where it is shown to the satisfactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, the loss occurred due to reprocessing of sugar. Also in the case of M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., the set of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in particular the Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were applicable. In the present context the fire accident took place on 23-2-2006. The assessee has applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the situation (loss of sugar due to reprocessing of sugar) is not covered by provisions of Rule 21 ibid. 3.2 In another case relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), no full citation was provided in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), as such it appears that the citation is absurd. If it is 1989 (44) E.L.T. 664 (Tri.) in the case of M/s. Pravara SSK Ltd. v. C.C.E, then it is observed by the said order case is remanded back to adjudicating authority and as such same is not applicable to the present case, being not a final decision. 3.3 Further, on a similar issue, in case of M/s. Mula SSK Ltd. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order-in-appeal No. RKR(65)225/07 dated 14-1-2008 has observed that the reprocessing loss of sugar is not entitled for claim of remission. The facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supdt., (ii) Statement of Assistant Godown Keeper, recorded on 6-6-2006 (iii) letter dated 2-3-2006 issued by the Range Supdt. getting permission to re-process the damaged sugar, (iv) Test memo dated 17-3-2006 relating to reprocessing of the burnt/damaged sugar and (v) Remission Claim letter dated 9-2-2007 are enclosed. 4.2 That the Surveyor namely N. Velayutham and Co. Chennai engaged by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office, Rahuri also conducted survey of the loss caused by the fire accident. As per the Surveyor s Loss Adjustment Report No. F/UII/021/019/2005-2006 dated 30-3-2007, vide Para No. 8 of the said Report, the Cause of Fire was reported as under : The insured states that the cause of fire is not know, but states further that gunny bags stitching and torned of gunny bags catching fire and spread at the central place. This being a godown with many made workers, surreptitious/careless smoking cannot be ruled out. Besides, though the godowns are not electrified, movables conveyors are used to stack/remove bags and electrical shorting due to sparking cannot be ruled out. Whether might have been the cause, this of an accidental nature so far the insured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed premises. Demand of duty on excisable goods lost due to fire or destroyed due to natural causes is not sustainable since there is no physical removal of the goods from the licensed/registered premises. In this regard, the respondent rely upon the following case laws, which are relevant in the matter : (i) U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut : 2004 (168) E.L.T. 280 (Tri.-Del.) : Remission of Duty - Destruction of goods by fire - Fire broke out in applicants godown due to electrical short circuit - Lower authorities denied the applicant s claim on ground that short circuit accrued due to temporary electrical fittings, which is carelessness on the part of applicants - Such findigs not justified as no accident can be attributed to anybody s carelessness - Revenue has no case that remission of duty on such goods is not otherwise admissible to the party - Impugned order set aside - Rule 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Para 3) (ii) Oswal Sugars Ltd. v. C.C.E, Jalandhar : 2004 (163) E.L.T. 361 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Plastikkos Packaging v. C.C.E., Allahabad : 2001 (128) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.-Del.) (iv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
