Tribunal grants appeal, finding rejection of duty remission based on assumption not sustainable.

The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's rejection of the Application for remission of duty was based on assumption and not sustainable in the eye of the law. The Tribunal noted that the cause of the fire incidents was not definitively ascertained, indicating that the appellant's management may not have been careless as concluded by the Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of Application for remission of duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I.

Issue 1: Rejection of Application for remission of duty

The Appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their Application for remission of duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I. The facts of the case revealed that there were two fire incidents in the appellant's factory godown resulting in significant loss of sugar. The Commissioner observed that the appellants failed to take proper safety measures and were careless in managing the fire incidents. However, the Police Authorities reports did not ascertain the cause of the fire, indicating that the management of the company may not have been careless as concluded by the Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that no accident can be attributed to carelessness, and in this case, the Commissioner's finding was based on assumption and not sustainable in the eye of the law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

---