9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l meaning and a more practical approach is required to be taken - the fire was not on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant – There was no reasons to deny remission of duty to the appellant in respect of the finally manufactured goods destroyed in fire – Confirmation of duty on goods set aside. Denial of credit of duty on packing material – Held that:- Packing material was lying in the godown of the applicant and was not even issued for further use in the factory - credit in respect of raw material/packing materials (Bleaching Powder) which were not put to use or were not even issued for use as is required to be reversed - the accident occurred on account of unavoidable cause, imposition of penalty upon appellant is not justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue along with estimated quantum of goods destroyed in the fire. During the course of investigation, statement of various responsible persons of the appellant-company were recorded wherein they have deposed that they had taken all the precautions for prevention of fire and management, in case it happens, but it seems that due to excessive heat emanating from SBP godowns Caustic Soda flakes was destroyed. He also deposed that such destruction was also on account of spraying of water from the fire hydrant system and in future they will use some alternative mode for handling the fire. 3. The Commissioner, while dealing with the remission application, observed as under :- The stated probable cause for decomposition of SBP, due to excessiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mode of stocking the goods for the last number of years without their being any mis-happening. As such they cannot be held liable for the sudden heat fire. The same was unintended and, has occurred on account of excessive heat for which appellant cannot be held responsible. If the observation of Commissioner is accepted, the same amounts to saying that if the driver of a car would have taken precaution, while driving, he could have avoided car accident. We all know that accidents occur and nobody can be held liable for the same or at least liable for not taking adequate precautions. It is not the revenue s case that the appellant had not taken adequate precaution to avoid such accident but if the same happened on account of excessive heat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
