9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis that as per the jurisdictional central excise officer's report on his physical verification, it was found that neither in the past nor in the present scenario there is any preponderance of fire fighting measure that the FSL report also indicate the electric wires of the company were ragged/ tattered at various places and were in a dilapidated condition which evidently indicated lethargy in their maintenance and lack of proper firefighting and checking arrangement on the part of the assessee. The assessee had taken the firefighting precautionary steps only after 2-3 months after the fire incident and had installed the water guns at the factory premises. With this observation, the adjudicating authority has contended that due to n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory was beyond the control of the appellant. He submits that the adjudicating authority stated that no fire extinguisher was placed in the factory. In this regard, he referred to a chart of firefighting equipment installed in the factory for the period from January 1987 to January 2014. It is his submission that on this fact, the appellant have taken precautionary measures of firefighting. The adjudicating authority has wrongly said that after 2014 no expenditure was made on firefighting. In this regard, he submits that once all the firefighting equipment have been installed, there is no need to spend on the same on regular basis, therefore, the finding in this regard of the adjudicating authority is on assumption presumption basis and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18) ELT 451 (T) * Sumit Chemicals - 2016 (337) ELT 299 (T) * Arhant Studes Ltd. 2016 (322) ELT 827 (T) * Quest International India Ltd. - 1998 (100) ELT 358 (T) * Ginni Filaments Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 273 (T) * Medicaps - 2011 (24) STR 572 (T) * Parekh Plast - 2012 (25) STR 46 (T) * Themis Medicare - 2014-TIOL-336-CESTAT-MUM * Tata Advance- 2018-TIOL-2501-CESTAT-BANG 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned authorized representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the main contention of the adjudicating authority in rejecting the remission application is that fire was avoidab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, I am of the considered view that the appellant have taken abundant precaution as regard firefighting measure and there is no lapse on the part of the appellant to hold that the fire incident could have been avoided. Moreover, it is not the case of the department that the appellant had conscious intention to allow the incident of fire in the factory. From the various reports, it has been established that the fire has taken place due to the natural cause, hence, the case is clearly covered under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2004. As regard the valuation of goods that price for the purpose of insurance claim was enhanced from Rs. 139 per KG to Rs. 149.16 per KG. From the calculation, it is absolutely clear that this enhancement does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
