9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l goods, work in progress, finished goods were destroyed. The appellant intimated to the Department of occurrence of fire on 22.04.2002 and thereafter, filed the claim of remission of duty which was rejected on the following grounds: a) The appellant did not take proper care to avoid fire accident, b) Appellant has not produced the record that they have recovered the duty element from insurance company, and; c) They have not intimated to the department within time. 3. Consequently, the claim of remission of duty was denied. In consequent to that duty is demanded by the appellant by passing another order along with interest and imposition of penalty. Aggrieved from the said orders appellant is before me. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l goods and excisable goods. Therefore, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner is totally irrelevant. With regard to the intimation to the department it is the submission that fire took place on 17-18/04/2002. On 19th April appellant could not inform to the appellant. 20th and 21st April being Saturday and Sunday, so on 22nd April appellant informed to the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was negligent by not informing to the department. 5. He further submits that on 24.04.2002 department officers came to the factory of the appellant to ascertain the fact that whether fire took place in the factory or not. He also submits that appellant intimated to the fire department and to the police regarding the incidence of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty. It is a fact on record that fire accident took place due to short circuit in electric wire. The, short circuit in electric wire is not in the hand of a man who could avoid such accident. Therefore, it cannot be the reason that appellant failed to take necessary steps to avoid fire accident. Therefore, on this ground also claim of remission of duty cannot be denied. 11. On the issue of claim received by the appellant from Insurance Company appellant has produced the document on record that insurance company has not sanctioned the amount of duty as claim of insurance to the appellant. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant has received duty element in their insurance claim. Therefore, on this ground also claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
