2012 (12) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nfirmed the duty demand of Rs. 18,08,292/- with interest as adjudicated vide order-in-original by the concerned Adjudicating Authority. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are that on 27th June 2005 (night) a fire incident took place at the factory of the appellant resulting in total loss of finished as well as semi-finished goods lying in their store. Intimation in this regard was given to the fire department. Intimation was also given to the department on 28th June 2005. Pursuant to the intimation,  Superintendent Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellant to ascertain the loss. Since entire section where the goods were stored was gutted the loss could not be assessed on that day. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er ground for denying remission and for confirmation of demand was that that appellant had taken insurance claim in respect of the goods destroyed in fire, but he did not furnish any document, which could clarify whether or not the insurance compensation received by the appellant included the excise duty payable on the final product. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Commissioner (Adjudication) are not sustainable in law, firstly because they are based upon incorrect interpretation of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Secondly, it is contended that even the plea that insurance documents were not supplied during adjudication proceedings is unfounded in view of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ire accident, which took place because of short circuit could have been avoided if the appellant had properly maintained the electric wiring in the factory as such Rule 21 is not attracted. It is further contended that Commissioner (Adjudication) was rightly in rejecting the application for remission of excise duty because only semi-finished goods and inputs on which Cenvat credit was availed were destroyed in fire. 8. We have considered the rival contention and perused the record. The facts in this case are not disputed. Only issue for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which reads thus :- Rule 21. Remission of duty. - Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cident. This satisfaction envisaged by the Rule is not arbitrary satisfaction but the judicial satisfaction of the Commissioner based upon objective analysis of the facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the plea of the appellant on the premise that the fire accident was avoidable by following mandatory safety norms by the appellant. This finding, however, is not supported by facts and reasoning. There is nothing on record of appeal No. 2608 of 2008 to suggest that there was any material available with the Commissioner (Adjudication) to come to the conclusion that the appellant was not following the safety norms, therefore, we find it difficult to accept his finding in this regard. 10. As regards, the plea of Shri S.R. Meena,....