9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it reveals that it was grave lapse on the part of the assessee for not taking precautions for keeping safe place. As per the first proviso of Rule 49 the manufacturer shall on demand pay duty leviable on any goods which are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents during handling or storage. The finding of the Learned Commissioner that the appellant had been negligent in safeguarding excisable goods is not reasonable as the appellant s stake in the destroyed goods was much higher than the stake of the Revenue. Nobody would deliberately indulge in such act or exercise which may result in huge loss and therefore while interpreting Rule 49 the authorities are required to be liberal. For rejection of remission of duty Ld. Commissioner take the ground that Appellant stored the goods in store -room without obtaining the permission for storing of excisable goods. However the Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules 1944 provide that a manufacturer shall provide a store-room or other place of storage at his premises for depositing goods made on the same premise without payment of duty. Here, the word sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon, that insurance claim having no bearing on claim for remission of duty. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel in this context squarely applicable. There was no cause for demand of duty from appellant in the instant case - the Commissioner s order is misconceived and incorrect in law as well as in fact - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 716 of 2012-DB - A/10857/2023 - Dated:- 11-4-2023 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. Mehul Jiwani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri. R.K. Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant, a manufacturer of glass bottles and vials, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, by which the claim for remission of duty on the goods lost in fire accident which occurred on 22-01-1998, was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant in its factory at Kosamba, had stored stock of finished goods in approved bonded store room as well as temporary godown. The entire stock was entered in RG-1 register. A fire broke out on 02.01.1998 and immediately intimation was sent to the Superintendent of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (Tri.- Del) 5. He also submits that Ld. Commissioner in para 16 of order has observed that vide letter dtd. 10.02.2012 the details were called for in respect of claim of excise duty from insurance company which appellant failed to produce. The said details have been asked after almost 14 years of the incident. In the meantime, a fire occurred in the factory in the year 2006 wherein various documents were destroyed. The said facts also communicated to the department. Thus, there is no point in asking such information after lapse of 14 years. 6. Without prejudice, he also submits that the tribunal as well as high court has consistently held that insurance claim of excise duty is having no bearing on claim or remission of duty. He placed reliance on the following judgments. i. Welspun Terri Towels 2002 (149) ELT 593 (Tri.-Mumbai) ii. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. 2009 (241) ELT 92 (Tri. Bang.) iii. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore Vs. Tata Advanced materials Ltd. 2011 (271) ELT 62 (kar.) iv. Themis Medicare Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 141 (Tri. Ahmd) 7. He also submits that the goods were stored in storeroom which was in factory premises therefore remission of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for in the manner specifically provided in these rules, or which are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident during handling or storage in such store-room or other approved premises : Provided further that the proper officer may not demand duty due on any goods claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing subject to such condition as may be imposed by the Collector by order in writing .... From the above erstwhile rule, it can be seen that where excisable goods have been destroyed or lost by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents and the proper officer is satisfied about the same, duty shall not be demanded. In this case it is not in dispute that the goods were destroyed due to fire accident and it is on record that the accident has taken place due to electric short circuit. In the present matter Ld. Commissioner for rejecting the remission of duty held that assessee could have saved the goods by storing in a approved store room. Hence the loss was indefinitely avoidable and goods could have been saved. The loss of the excisable goods in the instant case ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored the goods in store -room without obtaining the permission for storing of excisable goods. However the Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules 1944 provide that a manufacturer shall provide a store-room or other place of storage at his premises for depositing goods made on the same premise without payment of duty. Here, the word same premises means factory in which the goods are manufactured. We find force in argument of Ld. Counsel that as per the Notification No. 2/93 dtd. 13.02.1993 power to approve store room under rule 47(3) was delegated to Superintendent of Central Excise who was also licensing authority. In the present matter license was granted by the Superintendent as per procedure and he approved the ground plan. The same should be considered as sufficient approval for the purpose of storing the goods in the factory. The facts that the goods was stored in the temporary store room and panchnama drawn by the Superintendent of Central Excise is not disputed. In the panchnama proceeding nowhere it was mentioned that the goods was stored outside the factory premises. Therefore in our view on this ground remission of duty cannot be denied. We also noticed that in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
