TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....46 quintals reprocessing loss valued of Rs. 19,21,652/- variety S-30 grade sugar from the stock of 2004-05 season. The assessee filed remission application on 30-1-2007 for central excise duty Rs. 74,290/- & cess Rs. 15,364/- + E. Cess Rs. 1793/- Total 91447/-. The assessee have intimated that total sugar loss is 1097.46 qtls. and upon which they have reversed Cenvat Credit Rs. 2371/- and E. Cess Rs. 38/- on 12-1-2007. 2.1 As per the provision of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing at any time before removal, he may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such condition as may be imposed by him by order in writing. Further, as per procedure prescribed in Chapter 18, Part-I, Para 1.4 of CBEC, Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions, a manufacturer seeking remission of duty in respect of excisable goods manufactured in his factory on the grounds that the said goods have been rendered unfit for consumption or for marketing will make an applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals), as such it appears that the citation is absurd. If it is 1989 (44) E.L.T. 664 (Tri.) in the case of M/s. Pravara SSK Ltd. v. C.C.E, then it is observed by the said order case is remanded back to adjudicating authority and as such same is not applicable to the present case, being not a final decision. 3.3 Further, on a similar issue, in case of M/s. Mula SSK Ltd. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order-in-appeal No. RKR(65)225/07 dated 14-1-2008 has observed that the reprocessing loss of sugar is not entitled for claim of remission. The facts of present case are also similar but the same appellate authority has taken different stand. 3.4 Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under : "Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing : 4. A notice under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the respondent M/s. Padmashri D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Report, the Cause of Fire was reported as under : "The insured states that the cause of fire is not know, but states further that "gunny bags stitching and torned of gunny bags catching fire and spread at the central place." This being a godown with many made workers, surreptitious/careless smoking cannot be ruled out. Besides, though the godowns are not electrified, movables conveyors are used to stack/remove bags and electrical shorting due to sparking cannot be ruled out. "Whether might have been the cause, this of an accidental nature so far the insured is concerned and falls within the purview of the policy." Secondly, on Page No. 19 of the said Survey report, under the head excise duty it was reported as under : "Excise duty is paid only when sugar is sold and delivered. The sugar in godown has not incurred Excise duty. Besides, the insured's declared value is without any excise duty. Hence, there is no claim under this item." 4.3 That as per the facts on record and the insurer's survey report mentioned above, it is evident that the total sugar loss of 1097.46 qtls was on account of natural cause of fire and hence well covered by the provisions of Rule 21 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies denied the applicant's claim on ground that short circuit accrued due to temporary electrical fittings, which is carelessness on the part of applicants - Such findigs not justified as no accident can be attributed to anybody's carelessness - Revenue has no case that remission of duty on such goods is not otherwise admissible to the party - Impugned order set aside - Rule 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Para 3) (ii) Oswal Sugars Ltd. v. C.C.E, Jalandhar : 2004 (163) E.L.T. 361 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Plastikkos Packaging v. C.C.E., Allahabad : 2001 (128) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Sarjoo Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur : 1995 (75) E.L.T. 336 (Tri.) (v) Sarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Calcutta v. Collr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Shillong : 1987 (32) E.L.T. 116 (Tri.) (vi) Pravasa SSK Ltd. v. Collr. of C.Ex. : 1989 (44) E.L.T. 664 (Tri.) The respondent submit that their case is fully covered by the ratios in the above mentioned judgements and therefore the remission claim filed by them was legally admissible. 5.  The case was listed for personal....