2013 (12) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llants factory on 2.6.2004 and the raw materials stored in the factory and as also semi finished goods as well as finished goods got destroyed. The fact of fire was intimated to the Revenue vide their letter dated 3.6.04. The Appellants jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officer visited the appellants factory on 4.6.04 and conducted survey of the premises as also the goods destroyed / damaged in the fire. The statement of the appellants Director Shri Neeraj Gupta was also recorded on 4.6.04. 3. In view of the above, the appellants filed the remission application dated 30.5.05 in terms of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 seeking remission of duty of 8,85,278.40 in respect of goods in process and of Rs.5,12,659.26 in respect of finis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of and it was found that fire occurred on account of short circuiting which happened on account of overheating of cables. 6. Subsequently, the appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 25.4.06 proposing to reject the remission application seeking remission of total duty of Rs.13,97,937.66. The said show cause notice stand culminated into impugned order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the appellants remission application. 7. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Kumar Akarshan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri B. B. Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the adjudicating authority has observed that breaking of fire on account of short circuit cannot held to be a 'natural ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing requiring practical approach in such cases. The said decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was taken note of by the Tribunal in the case of Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. [2013 (293) ELT 68 (Tri-Del)]. It was held that fire having occurred on account of excess heat emanating from the storage of the goods has to be held as unintended. The Court observed that - it is well settled that nobody intentionally invites such accidents to happen and they happen on account of various natural causes' and have to be held as unavoidable accident. Similarly, the observations of the Commissioner that two years back also, the fire broke in the factory of the appellants job worker has no relevance to the present case. Admittedly, the factory of the jo....