2015 (11) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Per B Ravichandran The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.U. Foam and Articles of P.U. Foam liable to Central Excise duty and are availing Cenvat credit facility. A fire broke out in the factory premises of the appellant on 28/03/1998. The same was infor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ejection of remission claim and the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. The only ground on which the Original Authority rejected the remission application was that the appellant did not take proper care to prevent the fire. They relied on the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and reiterated that once there was no dispute that the goods were completely b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l.); (iv) Aditya Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (247) E.L.T. 567 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (v) Selvarathnam Matches Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Tirunelveli reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 610 (Tri.-Chennai) (vi) Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 682 (Tri. - Del.); and (vii) Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited repor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s informed who put out the fire later. The learned Commissioner rejected the remission claim on this ground and consequently confirmed the demand for excise duty on the product destroyed in fire. We find that the reason for rejection of remission and consequently confirmation of demand is not legally tenable. It is to be noticed that the appellants have lost substantial quantity of finished goods ....