2015 (11) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd for excise duty on the product destroyed in fire. We find that the reason for rejection of remission and consequently confirmation of demand is not legally tenable. It is to be noticed that the appellants have lost substantial quantity of finished goods worth crores of rupees and the duty portion of the said loss is only a small part. It is nobody case that the fire accident benefited the appellant by way of remission of duty. It is also nobody case that as the owner of the goods, the appellant, are not inclined to take expeditious action to avoid or reduce the damage of their property. - even the swift action immediately after noticing fire could not have prevented some damage to the final product. Further, we find the Original Authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was adjudicated by the Commissioner who rejected the remission claim and confirmed the demand of the above said amount. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant is before us. 2. In the appeal, the appellants pleaded that no show cause notice was issued to them giving the reason for proposed rejection of remission claim and the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. The only ground on which the Original Authority rejected the remission application was that the appellant did not take proper care to prevent the fire. They relied on the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and reiterated that once there was no dispute that the goods were completely burnt the Commissioner had no option but to remit the du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority and the consequential confirmation of demand equal to that amount is sustainable. The Original Authority observed that the appellant kept the final product in open space and exhibited casual approach in dealing with the goods. Prescribed procedure for highly inflammable product has not been followed to avoid such fire accident. Sufficient fire fighting equipment were not put to service. Only fire brigade was informed who put out the fire later. The learned Commissioner rejected the remission claim on this ground and consequently confirmed the demand for excise duty on the product destroyed in fire. We find that the reason for rejection of remission and consequently confirmation of demand is not legally tenable. It is to be noticed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X