9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above order are that the appellant is a manufacturer of plastic products like HDPE woven sacks and HDPE fabrics. On 13-12-1989 a fire broke out in the appellant's premises and destroyed the stock of manufactured goods. The duty involved on such goods was about Rs. 95,000/-. On 16-12-1989 the appellant informed the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities about the fire accident. Subsequently on 5-4-1990 the appellant filed an application before the Jurisdictional Supdt. for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. Some more correspondence took place including with the Collector of Central Excise, Show cause notice dated 4-10-1994 was issued proposing to reject the application for remission of duty and also proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Ltd. Division-IV (Code 451500), Jeevan Bhawan Building, Hazratganj, Lucknow addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise Range, Chowk, Lucknow. Wherein even the "Survey Report" of the Insurance Co. have not been provided to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on the apparently false pretext of its being "Private and confidential document" (copy enclosed)". 4. The allegation in the aforesaid para has been upheld in the impugned order. The relevant findings as contained in para 5 of the order are as under : - "The first question before me for decision is whether the excisable goods were actually destroyed in fire accident or not? I have carefully gone through the documents submitted by the party viz (i) photocopy of F.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case. The facts of cited cases of International Auto Suppliers v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1985 (21) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal) Pravasa Sahkari Karkhana Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 664 (Tribunal) are quite different from the present case are of no help to the party. Thus, I find that party has contravened the provisions of Rules 52A, 173F 223A of C. Ex. Rules, 1944 as excisable goods were clandestinely removed by them in the garb of fire accident. Further party's contention that the receipt of compensation of Rs. 622,833.00 from insurance company does not form the basis for rejection of their claim for remission of duty, is not tenable because in the present case they have failed to produce any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/AR/KW/94, dated 3-2-1994 of the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow addressed to the Supdt., of Central Excise. The show cause notice also states that survey report has not been made available to the Central Excise "on the pretext of being "Private and confidential documents". The notice does not at all indicate how the letter of the Insurance company supports the view that goods were removed 'in the garb of' fire accident. The order-in-original is no improvement upon the show cause notice. Apart from blaming the appellant for not producing the survey report and delay in reporting the fire accident, it mentions no evidence which is in support of a finding that the goods were, in fact removed without payment of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
