2015 (7) TMI 1177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... factory. The appellant informed the Department regarding such accident and the Range officer also visited the factory on the said date. Upon verification of such event, the Range Officer advised the appellant to reverse the cenvat credit attributable to the semi-finished goods and finished goods destroyed in fire. Immediately, the appellant reversed the cenvat credit of Rs. 41,01,620/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed the application in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 before the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for remission of duty involved in the goods destroyed in fire. The Department issued the SCN dated 27.08.2010, seeking recovery of Central Excise duty along with interest involved on the finished good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssion application on the ground that no reasonable steps were taken by the appellant to prevent fire. I find that in the impugned order at paragraph 7, it has been recorded that the fire accident has occurred in the factory due to a short circuit. In this context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE vs M. Kumar Udyog (P) Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 19 (All.) has held that accident of fire due to short circuit is an unavoidable accident, for which the assessee is entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21 ibid. In view of the said judgment, the impugned order denying the benefit of remission on this ground is not justified. 6. Further, there is no justification in confirming the demand on the semi-finished goods, for th....