TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants remission of duty for destroyed goods due to fire accident</h1> <h3>MILTON PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA</h3> MILTON PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 206 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara regarding a fire accident at a factory.2. Whether the fire accident was due to natural cause or unavoidable accident.3. Burden of proof on the appellant to establish the goods destroyed in the fire.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, regarding a fire accident at the appellant's factory. Despite notice, the appellants did not appear for the hearing, citing lack of working staff and inability to trace the appeal paper book. The Commissioner observed that the fire was due to negligence of an employee, leading to the destruction of finished goods, and issued a demand notice for Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 32,34,885.57.2. The main issue was whether the fire accident was due to natural cause or an unavoidable accident. The Commissioner found negligence on the part of the appellant's employee for not switching off the lights, but no evidence was produced to support this claim. The Tribunal noted that the only evidence available suggested the fire was accidental. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the goods destroyed due to fire were covered under the Proviso to Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, as an unavoidable accident. The appellant had provided details of the destroyed goods, and the Department had no evidence to dispute the quantity.3. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the quantity of goods destroyed in the fire and claim remission of duty under the Proviso to Rule 49. The Revenue argued negligence on the part of the appellant for not having fire fighting equipment and failing to provide a Survey Report. However, the Tribunal found no merit in these arguments and held that the appellants were entitled to remission of duty under the Proviso to Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal was allowed with consequent relief granted to the appellants.
TaxTMI 