9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. Further, as per the report of the Fire Department, no case of negligence has been made out against the appellant. The loss has occurred including the loss of finished goods due to natural causes and/or by unavoidable fire accident and further the partially damaged goods were rendered unfit for human consumption being medicines, and were also unfit for marketing - the appellant is entitled to remission as provided under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently the demand of duty of the matching amount is also set aside alongwith penalty. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 51090 of 2022-SM and Excise Appeal No. 51116 of 2022-SM - FINAL ORDER Nos. 51055 – 51056/2022 - Dated:- 3-11-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvey report dated 12.09.2017, the appellant received payment for the loss on 23.09.2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,45,51,817/-. Further, for damage to building amount of claim was passed for Rs.1,64,943/-, totalling Rs. 1,47,16,760/-. 3. It is stated by the appellant that although they resumed production within a week as their raw material and manufacturing machinery was safe from the fire. However, due to the heavy loss suffered resulting in agony, they could not file their claim for remission as per Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules. 4. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 09.04.2018 demanding duty on the goods lost in fire, calculated at Rs. 35,07,936/-, further proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC alongwith interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-appeal dated 02.02.2022 dismissing the appeal observing that it is a case of negligence on the part of the appellant which is the reason for loss due to fire. Being aggrieved with the impugned order-in-appeal dated 02.02.2022, the appellant have filed present Excise Appeal No. 51090 of 2022 before this Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that admittedly the incidence of fire is due to sparks from the transformer, owned and maintained by the State Electricity Board. The appellant has no control in the maintenance of the said transformer. It is due to bad weather during the period there was incidence of sparks from the generator and the sparks entered the godown of the appellant, wherein the finished goods had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue relies on the impugned order(s). 10. Having considering the rival contentions, I find that the incidence of fire and the loss of goods due to fire are undisputed. I further find that under the facts and circumstances the fire was caused due to sparks, which have come out from the transformer due to stormy weather condition. On such fire incidence the appellant had no control nor such incidence were avoidable on the part of the appellant. The appellant was manufacturing since 1992 at the said premises and this was the first incidence of fire, which has occurred. Further, as per the report of the Fire Department, no case of negligence has been made out against the appellant. Thus, I hold that the loss has occurred including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
