2011 (6) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; 2. It is seen that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LDPE/ HDPE Films/ Sheets, Cap Covers, U.V. Films, L.D. Tarpaulins etc., classifiable under Chapter 39 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A fire broke out in the factory on 22.01.2009, which was intimated to the Range Officer on 23.01.2009. The panchnama was drawn assessing the loss of the final products lying in the stock as on 22.01.2009.   3. Subsequently, remission application was filed on 20.06.2009 seeking the remission of duty in respect of the goods destroyed in the fire, in terms of the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said application was not decided by the Commissioner for a long time and instead of de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order, the Commissioner rejects the remission application and decides the show cause notice confirming the demand of duty on various grounds, which were not even the subject matter of the show cause notice. The grounds adopted by the Commissioner for rejection of remission and for confirmation of demand are as follows :-   (i) He has held that the fire was not as a result of unavoidable accident inasmuch as five workers of the factory were found sleeping in the inspection room, at the time of incident of fire, which was around noon 1300 Hrs. He has accordingly, concluded that, if these workers would have been awake and not sleeping, the mishap could have been avoided.   (ii) That the fire has taken place in two plot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t numbers, he clarifies that the original registration certificate granted in terms of Rule 174 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was for both the Plots i.e. A-1/835 and 836. He submits that in the ground plan and the other relevant documents, both the plots have been shown under the ownership of the present appellants and as one factory. However, when a new registration certificate was obtained in terms of Rule 9, the Plot No. A-1/836 was missed by mistake. This was a human error inasmuch as both the plots are considered a part of the one factory even by their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. By referring the provisions of Rule 9, he submits that any registration obtained under erstwhile Rule 174, shall be deemed to be ....