9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2008 (10) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN ] nobody intentionally invites such accidents to happen and they happen on account of various natural causes’ and have to be held as unavoidable accident. Denial of Remission – Held that:- Following Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore [2006 (8) TMI 69 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI ] - When the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal has decided the issue, the law gets declared on the disputed issue and is required to be followed by all the adjudicating authorities, unless the same is reversed by the higher appellate forum - the Commissioner was bound to follow the Larger Bench decision - rejection of the remission application cannot be upheld. Remission of duty on the semi-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty of 8,85,278.40 in respect of goods in process and of Rs.5,12,659.26 in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire. On receipt of above application, a report was sought from their jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Vide their letter dated 1.8.05, the office of Assistant Commissioner recommended the rejection of remission application on the ground that as prescribed under Chapter 18 of the CBEC Excise Manual of supplementary instructions read with CBEC Circular No.800/33/2004-CX dated 1.10.04, the assessee has not reversed the credit involved on goods which were contained in burnt / destroyed finished goods and as also on the ground that Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules provide remission of duty on the finished goods only and such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved that breaking of fire on account of short circuit cannot held to be a natural cause or unavoidable accident . The appellant failed to give details of the firefighting equipment in their factory and to show that they had adequate safety measures to prevent fire accidents due to short circuit. Commissioner observed that on previous occasions also such fire broke in the factory of their job worker in the year 2002 on account of short circuiting. He also rejected the remission application on the ground that appellants have not reversed the Cenvat credit involved in the raw materials contained in the final product, so damaged. He rejected the remission of duty of Rs.8,85,278.40 on the semi finished goods by observing that the said goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job worker has no relevance to the present case. Admittedly, the factory of the job workers is a different factory and we do not know the reasons for fire in that case. The fire accident may arrive without giving any warning and it cannot be said that once the fire broke in the factory of the job worker of the appellant, the same cannot again cause appearance in the appellants factory after a period of two years. I find no relevance to the said observation of the Commissioner in the present case. Accordingly, I hold that the fire having been caused on account of electric short circuiting, has to be held as covered by expression unavoidable accident . 9. As regards, the second reason adopted by the Commissioner for denial of remission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
