9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said contention of the learned adjudicating authority cannot be agreed for the reason that once all the firefighting equipment have been installed in the factory i.e. upto January 2014, only in case of any need the firefighting equipment is required. Only because there is no expenditure in respect of firefighting measures after 2014, it cannot be said that the appellant have not equipped their factory with firefighting measures. There is absolutely no adverse remark in any of the various reports made in respect of the incident of fire in the factory. Be it of Inspector of Police, Fire Brigades, Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety Industry, Nagarpalika and from various reports, it is clear that the fire incident has taken pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the order in original passed by the Commissioner rejecting the remission application of excise duty amounting to Rs. 40,47,645/- in respect of final product destroyed in fire which took place in the factory of the appellant. The adjudicating authority rejected the remission claim on 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Sachin Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the findings of the adjudicating authority is completely erroneous on the face of the fact that the appellant have taken all the precaution to avoid the fire incident but the fire incident taken place in the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption and presumption and without any basis. He in support of his submission placed reliance on the following judgements: Motherson Automotive 2017-TIOL-2082-CESTAT-ALL Railtronics India 2017 (354) ELT 324 (ALL) M. Kumar Udhyog 2014 (306) ELT 19 (ALL) Tej Shoe Factory 2018 (363) ELT 863 (T) Sanskriti Packaging 2015 (318) 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. Kirupanand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Health and Safety Industry, Nagarpalika and from various reports, it is clear that the fire incident has taken place due to short circuit. The short circuit is clearly beyond the control of anyone and it is general that in majority of cases fire takes place due to short circuit and the same cannot be predicted by anyone in advance. Therefore, 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 esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
