9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay Central Excise Duty amount to Rs. 1,25,825/- payable on the goods, semi-finished goods and Modvat credit taken on goods destroyed in fire accident which occurred in their factory premises on 10-12-1998. The party, vide their letter dated 11-12-98 intimated the jurisdictional Range officer that a fire accident had taken place in their unit on 10-12-98 at 5.00 hrs. The party also lodged on FIR in the Police Station, Sector-20 Noida on 10-12-98. The party, vide their letter dated 26-4-1999 (received on 29-4-99) addressed to the Commissioner, Central Excise Meerut gave the details of the goods destroyed along with value and amount of duty and Modvat credit involved thereto. They requested for remission of duty. The department alleged that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but due to negligence on the part of the applicant, hence remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not available to them. 4. Aggrieved by this order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application on the following grounds - 4.1 The party has submitted the report of Fire Fighting Department, Police Station and Insurance Company. No agency has raised doubt on the incident and given their report clean. Therefore in the absence of any negative evidence and information on record, the appellant is failed to understand that on what ground an allegation has been put on that it was the result of utter negligence and wantonness on the party, which let to the fire and destruction of goods. 4.2&ems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsecticides Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 575 (Tri.) which is also not according to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. the goods were lost during the course of transit and hence not accepted by the Tribunal. 4.6 On the contrary, in the present case the loss is due to fire and after issuance of inputs for manufacturing, and there are number of cases addressed the issue that loss due to fire. Therefore this ground of the Commissioner for rejecting the application of the applicant is not acceptable. 4.7 The Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Golden Hills Estates v. Commissioner, Madras reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 301 (Mad.) has held that the loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
