TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of Polyester coated film, Metallised Polyester films etc. and are also availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the inputs used in the manufacture of above excisable final products. There was a fire accident in the factory premises of the appellant on 31.3.2012. Appellant's Manager Shri Rishi Ashok Sheth was present in the factory and appellant tried to control the fire and also promptly informed Fire and Emergency Services, Police authorities, Central Excise Authorities, Insurance Company etc. at Surat. Police authorities carried out the inspection of the premises on 31.3.2012 and a Panchnama was drawn. After the investigation, it was concluded by police that no criminal angle was found to have been committed and the fire incident file was closed as an accident. The site was also visited by the Central Excise authorities on 02.4.2012 and the damage recorded. Appellant filed a remission application dated 11.3.2013 claiming remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A show cause notice dated 28.3.2013 was issued demanding duty and for imposing penalties. Both the demands raised and the remission claims were decided by two separate orders-in-original ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Limited - [2014 (306) ELT 19 (All.)] 3.1 With respect to the findings of the Adjudicating authority that appellant has claimed the incidence of duty confirmed from the insurance Company, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in the insurance claim the element of duty on finished goods was included but Insurance Company M/s. Future General India while setting appellants claim vide letter dated 14.10.2014 has only given them Rs. 3,04,37,941/- by deducting amounts of Rs. 62,40,649/- on account of Central Excise duty and VAT. Learned consultant was fair enough to argue that appellant would reverse/ pay Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 if their remission of duty is allowed. 4. Shri K. Sivakumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority. It was his case that the final claim of the appellant, as settled by the Insurance Company, was not made available to the adjudicating authority. It was argued by the learned AR that fire accident was due to human error and could have been avoided by taking necessary precautions. That appellant's remission application was correctly re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the affected site and thereafter much efforts, the fire came under control at about 0700PM. 6. Due to above fire accident, the machineries and materials lying at the Ground Floor of Plot No. 2124/B in name of Sanskriti Packaging Pvt. Limited got heavily damaged. The machineries and materials of M/s. R.K. Textiles and M/s. Krishna Prints (engaged in the Embroidery Work and located on the First Floor the said building premises) also got heavily damaged. During the said fire accident, no workers/ labourers of the said factories got injured. This dangerous incident was intimated in our office in Form No. 21A dated 02.4.2012. Prior to this, the said incident was also telephonically informed to them. 5.2 Based on the above factual matrix, police authorities has filed the fire case as an 'accident' after due investigation. Even Insurance Company has also settled the claim of the appellant and has not raised the objection that fire accident was avoidable or that there was any negligence on the part of the appellant. Negligence on the part of the appellant could be attributed if they were required to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion having been sustained by the assessee under the circumstances as covered by Rule 21. Then, merely because the Tribunal also referred to, or relied upon the accounting policy, which as held above, is not relevant, would not in any manner vitiate the finding, recorded by the Tribunal. The finding remains the findings of fact. 5.3 Similar views were expressed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE vs. M. Kumar Udhyog (P) Limited [2014 (306) ELT 19 (All.)] in Para -7 of this order reproduced below:- 7. Under Rule 21, a remission of duty is contemplated where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by (i) natural causes; or (ii) unavoidable accident; or are claimed by the manufacturer as being unfit for consumption or for marketing. The remission is to be granted subject to such conditions as may be imposed. The expressions 'natural causes' or 'unavoidable accident' have to be interpreted in their ordinary and natural connotation. An unavoidable accident is an event which lies beyond the control of the assessee and which has taken place despi....