2015 (10) TMI 1985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant wherein factory building, capital goods, work in progress, finished goods were destroyed. The appellant intimated to the Department of occurrence of fire on 22.04.2002 and thereafter, filed the claim of remission of duty which was rejected on the following grounds: a) The appellant did not take proper care to avoid fire accident, b) Appellant has not produced the record that they have recovered the duty element from insurance company, and; c) They have not intimated to the department within time. 3. Consequently, the claim of remission of duty was denied. In consequent to that duty is demanded by the appellant by passing another order along with interest and imposition of penalty. Aggrieved from the said orders appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ident for destroying of their factory building, capital goods and excisable goods. Therefore, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner is totally irrelevant. With regard to the intimation to the department it is the submission that fire took place on 17-18/04/2002. On 19th April appellant could not inform to the appellant. 20th and 21st April being Saturday and Sunday, so on 22nd April appellant informed to the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was negligent by not informing to the department. 5. He further submits that on 24.04.2002 department officers came to the factory of the appellant to ascertain the fact that whether fire took place in the factory or not. He also submits that appellant intimated to the fire de....