2022 (10) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wder etc. falling under chapter 33 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was also availing the facility of cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant filed application for remission of excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,71,034/- under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on finished goods claiming that their finished goods were destroyed in the fire accident on 30.04.2012 as per the detailed annexure-A annexed to the show cause notice. With reference to their remission application a show cause notice was issued wherein it was alleged that the appellant did not take adequate steps and precaution in storing their finished goods as it is establis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch is a natural cause beyond the control of the appellant hence the condition laid down in rule 21 of Central Excise rules 2002 is fulfilled for the purpose of claiming remission of Duty. The fire accident was occurred on 30.04.2012 i.e. after factory working hours and though necessary precautionary measures were taken to avoid such fire accident by the appellant, the event of fire is not within the control of appellant hence it is unavoidable accident, therefore, the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant have not taken the precautionary measure is absolutely incorrect. As regard, the reversal of cenvat credit in respect of the inputs contained in the finished goods which was destroyed in fire, he submits that as per the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nchnama, there is no mention about the allegation that the appellant have not taken any precaution to avoid the fire incident. I further observe that the insurance survey was also carried out by New India Insurance Company Limited. In the said survey report also, there is no allegation against the appellant that the appellant had not taken proper precaution to avoid the fire incident. The most important agency in such accident is the insurance company, who is the major sufferer by the insurance claim as the same is much more than the excise duty involved in the present case has sanctioned the insurance claim without raising any objection about any misdeed on the part of the appellant, as regard the fire incident, therefore, it cannot be sai....