2009 (1) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lted in total destruction of finished goods and also part of stock of raw material. They filed an application under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules for remission of duty on the finished goods, which was rejected by the Commissioner by the impugned order on the two grounds:- (a) the Appellant failed to inform the Department/Officer in charge of the unit about the loss/destruction within a period of 24 hours of the incident, as required by Trade Notice No. 206/84, dated 1-12-84 of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut, (b) The Departmental enquiry report indicates that though the Appellant had sufficient fire prevention equipment in their factory premises but had not used the same. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri P.R. Malic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect, as the fire accident had taken place on holiday when the factory was closed. 2.2 Shri M.M. Singh, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order reiterating the Commissioner's findings. He emphasized that the time period of 24 hours for intimating the accident, as mentioned in the Commissionerate's trade notice is to enable to Department to immediately to verify the extent of loss of finished goods and to ascertain as to whether any finished goods which have not been destroyed have been salvaged and that in this case due to delay in informing the Department about the accident, such verification could not be done. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Ther....