2013 (12) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18.71 involved in the destroyed goods and Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,74,718.70 involved in the destroyed packing material stands confirmed, as a consequent of rejection of their remission application. 2. After hearing both the sides we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Caustic Soda flackes falling under Chapter 28 and other Chemical products falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue involved in the present appeal is remission of duty in respect of final products as also packing materials destroyed in the appellant factory during a fire which took place on 10-4-1997 at 5'o clock in evening. A copy of FIR filed with the police and fire brigade report both dated 10-4-1997 stands pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e been avoided, if proper and adequate precautionary measures, with respect to testing of raw material process control and storage of goods, were monitored. This fact is further substantiated from the statements of concerned personnel of the unit, as stated hereinabove. As such, I find no force in the assessee's contention that the cause of fire was not at all of negligence or want of precaution. As such, the remission claim is liable for rejection. Accordingly, I pass the following order." 4. As is seen from above, there is no dispute about the fact of fire in the appellant's factory and the resultant damage to the goods. The Commissioner has not considered the excessive heat as a natural cause for destruction on the ground that the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ire was not on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant. Tribunal in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.-Del.) observed that all accidents occur due to lack of precaution in which case none would be covered by the expression "unavoidable accident." 6. In view of above observation, we find no reasons to deny remission of duty to the appellant in respect of the finally manufactured goods destroyed in fire. Accordingly, confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 13,57,018.71 involved in such goods and confirmed in the second appeal is set aside. 7. However, we note that an amount of Rs. 2,74,718.70 stands confirmed by denying the credit of duty availed in respect of packing material. Such packing ....