2023 (6) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. E/11131/2014 was filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 16.11.2013 upholding rejection of remission of duty in respect of the goods lost in fire and appeal no. E/12646/2013 was filed against Order-In-Appeal dated 15.05.2013 whereby, the demand of excise duty in respect of the goods lost in fire was confirmed. Since both the matter are interconnected, we take the appeal no. E/11131/2014 for the purpose of narrating the facts of the case. 02. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of medical equipments, they have filed their application dated 26.08.2010 for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in fire accident occurred in their factory on 07.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31.07.2013 against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-In-appeal dated 16.12.2013 upheld the order of the original authority therefore, the present appeal No. E/11131/2014 was filed by the appellant and other appeal no. E/12646/2013 is towards the confirmation of demand of duty in respect of same goods lost in fire accident for which the remission was rejected. The result of this appeal will be an outcome of appeal no. E/11131/2014 as consequential effect. 03. Ms. Nidhi Nawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have admittedly intimated to the range officer about the fire accident, the officers visited the factory and recorded the panchnama wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2009 (247) E.L.T. 567 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Grasim Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Indore, 2007 (208) E.L.T. 336 (Tri. - LB) Supreme Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Daman 2009 (236) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-II Versus GES Polymers Pvt. Ltd-2008 (225) E.L.T. 122 (Tri. - Mumbai) Anand Duplex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut-I 2008 (223) E.L.T. 283 (Tri. - Del.) MRIDUL ENTERPRISES V/S COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR,2007 (213) E.L.T. 715 (Tri. - Del.) Government of India, Ministry Of Finance Ltd. in Re: Arraycom India Ltd.- 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1023 (G.O.I.) Commissioner of C. Ex., Guntur Versus Empee Marine Product....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 05. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that there is no dispute that the fire has occurred accidentally in the factory of the appellant and the goods were destroyed. The appellant has intimated to the range officer who visited the factory and drawn the panchnama. In the panchnama, there is no whisper about any mischief done by the appellant for the fire accident took place in the factory of the appellant therefore, nothing is on record that the fire accident has taken place not accidental but intentional by the act of the appellant. In this position, without any evidence the allegation of the lower authorities that the appellant have not taken precaution has no basis. We fu....