9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods destroyed in fire - E/2711/2009 and E/2608/2008 - A/522-523/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 3-5-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.R. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. - By this order we propose to decide these two connected appeals one arising out of the order of Commissioner (Adjudication), denying remission of excise duty to the appellant and other arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 18,08,292/- with interest as adjudicated vide order-in-original by the concerned Adjudicating Authority. 2. Briefly put facts relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of appeal No. 2711 of 2009. 4. The Commissioner (Adjudication) also vide order-in-original dated 29th of September 2008 dismissed the request of appellant for remission of excise duty. Appeal No. 2608 of 2008 relates to the aforesaid order-in-original. 5. The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that he is not entitled to benefit of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 because the fire was not the result of natural cause or unavoidable accident. The remission was also denied on the same ground. Beside this, the other ground for denying remission and for confirmation of demand was that that appellant had taken insurance claim in respect of the goods destroyed in fire, but he did not furnish any docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, ought to have been extended to the appellant. Thus, learned Counsel urges for setting aside of both the impugned orders. 7. Shri S.R. Meena, AR, on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, is available only in those cases where the excisable goods are lost or destroyed by unnatural causes or by unavoidable accidents. Shri S.R. Meena submitted that obviously this is not a case of destruction of excisable goods by natural cause and the fire accident, which took place because of short circuit could have been avoided if the appellant had properly maintained the electric wiring in the factory as such Rule 21 is not attracted. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thousand five hundred rupees but does not exceed five thousand rupees, the provisions of this rule shall have effect as if for the expression Commissioner , the expression Joint Commissioner of Central Excise or Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be , has been substituted. 9. On reading of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 it is clear the assessee is entitled to remission of excise duty if he is able to satisfy the Commissioner, Excise, that the goods in question were destroyed as a result of unavoidable accident. This satisfaction envisaged by the Rule is not arbitrary satisfaction but the judicial satisfaction of the Commissioner based upon objective analysis of the facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
