9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory. The appellant informed the Department regarding such accident and the Range officer also visited the factory on the said date. Upon verification of such event, the Range Officer advised the appellant to reverse the cenvat credit attributable to the semi-finished goods and finished goods destroyed in fire. Immediately, the appellant reversed the cenvat credit of Rs. 41,01,620/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed the application in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 before the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for remission of duty involved in the goods destroyed in fire. The Department issued the SCN dated 27.08.2010, seeking recovery of Central Excise duty along with interest involved on the finished goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission application on the ground that no reasonable steps were taken by the appellant to prevent fire. I find that in the impugned order at paragraph 7, it has been recorded that the fire accident has occurred in the factory due to a short circuit. In this context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE vs M. Kumar Udyog (P) Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 19 (All.) has held that accident of fire due to short circuit is an unavoidable accident, for which the assessee is entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21 ibid. In view of the said judgment, the impugned order denying the benefit of remission on this ground is not justified. 6. Further, there is no justification in confirming the demand on the semi-finished goods, for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty has not been granted, duty cannot be levied on those goods. Thus, in absence of any provisions contained in the statute for reversal of Cenvat credit, there is no question of payment of any interest as confirmed in the impugned order. 7. The submission of the appellant that the Insurance Company has only settled the claim with regard to the finished goods destroyed in fire and not on the semi-finished goods, I am of the view that the Ld. Jt. CDR has rightly pointed out that the report furnished by the appellant is not clear about the same. Considering the fact that the report submitted by the appellant is not clear, I am of the opinion that the matter should go back to the original authority for consideration of the actual amount se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
