TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Central Excise, appellant has also debited under protest the amount of cenvat credit of Rs. 5,97,062/- contained in inputs used in the manufacture of final products which were destroyed due to fire. The Appellant was issued show cause notice dated 13.04.1998 demanding the duty of Rs. 24,21,535/- on finished goods lost in fire. The deputy Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dtd. 30.11.2000 has passed the exparte order and confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), who passed the order-in-appeal stating that the order passed by the deputy commissioner is pre-mature and the Commissioner who is competent authority is yet to take a decision on the remission of duty application filed by the appellant. The appellant had written various letters to the Commissioner for disposal of remission application. The Commissioner vide impugned order -in-original dtd. 30.05.2012 rejected the duty remission application. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Chartered Accountant shri Mehul Jiwani appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deputy commissioner vide OIO dtd, 30.11.2000 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was destroyed in fire accident, in storeroom or other place approved by the department and failed to produce any details of not claiming excise duty involved in aforesaid goods from insurance company. Firstly, there is no contravention of Rule 44 and Rule 47 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further there is no such condition under rule 49 for rejection of the remission of duty. In the present matter fire was occurred in the factory and goods were lost in the factory before their removal and thereby remission should have been granted. There is no dispute that temporary godown was within the factory. The same is also evident from the Panchanama drawn by the Superintendent of Central Excise as well as order of the deputy Commissioner. Department has issued license for entire factory and thereby entire factory is approved premises. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Shakti Spinners Ltd. -2004 (167) ELT 364 (Tri. Del) ii. Sarada Plywood Industries Ltd. - 1987 (32) ELT 116 (Tribunal) iii. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. - 1999 (107) ELT 674 (Tribunal) iv. Sportking India Ltd. -2002 (145) ELT 535 (Tri. Del.) v. Supreme Industries Ltd. -2011 (271 )ELT 241 (Tri.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... precautions for keeping safe place. However we find that as per the first proviso of Rule 49 the manufacturer shall on demand pay duty leviable on any goods which are not shown to the satisfaction of the proper officer to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents during handling or storage. The finding of the Learned Commissioner that the appellant had been negligent in safeguarding excisable goods is not reasonable as the appellant's stake in the destroyed goods was much higher than the stake of the Revenue. Nobody would deliberately indulge in such act or exercise which may result in huge loss and therefore while interpreting Rule 49 the authorities are required to be liberal. 10. Needless to mention that all the accidents occurred due to lack of protections of the personnel responsible for avoiding such accidents and nobody indulges in such accidents purposely. If the observation as made by the Learned Commissioner is accepted then it would make the said rule redundant. It is not the case of the Revenue that there is any mala fide on the part of the appellant to make the accident occur resulting in loss of excisable goods. The fire accident has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed to the appellants only on the ground that the goods were not lying in the store room or other approved premises in terms of proviso to Rule 49. But I find that the goods were lying at that time in the factory premises itself which was an approved premises. The fact that at that time the goods were not stored by the appellants in an approved store room did not disentitle them from the remission of duty on the goods which were admittedly lost in fire. The loss of the goods in fire had not even been disputed by the Department. The perusal of the Rule 49 reveals that the goods should be either stored in the storage room or any other approved premises for the purpose of claiming remission of duty in the event of destruction of goods by fire or any other natural cause. The factory being the approved premises where the goods were lying at that time therefore, the appellants' claim for remission of duty could not be rejected. The case of the appellants stands squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above referred case. 4. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief if any permissible under the law. ....