TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee/appellant arising from the same facts being accidental fire and loss thereto. In Appeal No.E/217/2009 the issue is regarding denial of remission claim under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and in the other Appeal No.E/52159/2015, the issue is the consequential demand which is under dispute by the appellant-assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of plastic moulded components for T.V., Washing Machines and Automobiles and they were availing credit of the duty on inputs and capital goods in accordance with the statutory provisions. A major fire accident took place in the factory premises on 20th May, 2007 on which date inputs lying in stock were valued at Rs. 10,76,995/-, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 05,72,415/-+ Education cess Rs. 11,448/-+ S.H. Ed Rs. 5,742 totaling Rs. 5,89,588/-. Further the detail of the goods lost in fire was also annexed separately correct. It is further stated that at the time of the fire accident the finished goods were lying in the factory premises and were already entered in the daily stock account. Daily stock account was also found. It is further stated that some semi finished goods/work in progress valued at about Rs. 53,87,503/- had also been completely destroyed in fire and the details of which were annexed separately further stating that the credit availed by the assessee on the inputs which had been used in the semi finished goods/work in progress, destroyed in fire was not required to be reversed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 20:31 Hrs. on the same date after a considerable lapse of 41 minutes. Had the fire department been informed immediately as soon as the fire was seen at 19:50 Hrs, the damage so caused would have been saved. This shows serious negligence on the part of the appellants. The certificate of inspection in respect of firefighting of equipment belongs to the period post the fire incident which is not relevant. The instruction given by the fire Department to the factory/appellant that there should be proper up keeping of the equipment and proper use by the employee, also shows that firefighting equipment was not up to the mark as well as the employees of the factory were not aware of the use of the same. Further, it was observed that the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ident from the fire report that there was no previous incident of fire in the appellant s factory. Further in the reasons recorded for fire accident, it is mentioned electrical short-circuit . It is further recorded that when the firefighting team reached the premises, they found that there is a large or big fire and which have spread to the building, plant, machines, packing material and furniture. Several fire engines from additional fire stations had to be called into fight the fire. The Linter of the building had also caved in and fallen on the basement which also created hindrance in the firefighting operations. It was also stated that due to the large/huge nature of fire, it spread at joining factory of Onida company and their also ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in mitigating the loss. We also hold that it is the fire Department which is the authority to conclusively decide the reasons for the fire and also if there was any negligence on the part of the manufacturer assessee in compliance with any safety standards or conditions of consent to operate. Accordingly, we hold that the rejection of remission claim is bad. Thus we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. We hold that the appellant is entitled to the remission claim. Appeal No.E/52159/2015 8. During the pendency of the remission claim, revenue issued a show cause notice dated 12/05/2008 more or less on the same allegations as it has been noticed hereinabove requiring the appellant to show cause as to why duty amount of Rs. 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inputs used if duty has been remitted on finished goods. Similarly as regards work in progress if the WIP has reached the stage, when it can be considered as manufactured goods, in that case, the same treatment as applicable to finished goods would apply. However, if the activity carried out on the WIP cannot be considered as not amounting to manufacture, in that case, the said goods should be considered as input and the treatment for reversal of credit applicable to input would be applicable. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the said amendment introduction of Sub-rule (5C) in Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been brought about much after the incident of fire and as such the said amendment/provisions are no....