TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew of letter dt. 15-2-2002, of the assessee informing about the fire accident that took place in their factory. During the proceedings of panchnama it was noticed that stock of finished goods, which were entered into the daily stock account, were not destroyed. However, Chip Register taken in process (details as per Armexure-A to SCN dt. 20-3-2003) and semi finished goods details as per Annexure-B to SCN dt. 10-3-2003, involving Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 83,123/- and Rs. 13,02,541/- respectively were destroyed in the fire accident. However, the noticee voluntarily paid/reversed Rs. 5,83,12/- & (Rs. 83,123/-) through CENVAT account and Rs. 5,00,000/- through PLA account out of the above payable amount. The remaining duty amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 2.3 Since the applicants have not applied for remission of duty to the proper officer, therefore, duty is required to be recovered on the goods manufactured in the factory and the goods on which credit availed but destroyed in the fire accident. Therefore, Show Cause Notice dt. 10-3-2003, was issued to the noticee asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to RS. 8,02,541/- and CENVAT CREDIT amounting to Rs. 1,04,689/- should not be recovered under the provisions of Rule 4 & 8 of C.E.R. 2002, Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, r/w Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty and credit already paid should not be confirmed and appropriated. Also interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to Commissioner (Appeals), there is no provision for demanding/recovery of duty on destroyed capital goods in fire accident within the factory premises. 4. In the Revision Application the applicant made following main pleadings : (i) That when the application for remission is pending before the appropriate authority, no duty can be demanded on the goods lost by fire, pending the disposal of the remission application. (ii) That it was specifically pointed out of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), that the remission application filed by the application was pending before the Commissioner, and as such the demand of duty on the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been removed without payment of duty. In fact, all the evidence on record supported only the contrary view that was a fire and that the appellant lost his belongings to that fire. The findings are, therefore, contrary to evidence on record. Such findings and consequent duty demand cannot be sustained,." The impugned order is therefore, sets aside with consequent relief, if any, to the appellant. (viii) That the Hon'be Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 336 has passed similar judgment. (ix) That in the present case the goods were infact destroyed by the fire and the same is evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....541/- respectively were destroyed in the fire accident. It is also fact on record that the demand of Rs. 8,02,541/- pertain to the goods said to have been destroyed in fire accident. The applicants contention is that no Central Excise duty is payable on the goods destroyed by fire as the same were neither finished goods nor were removed from the factory in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In support of their contention the applicants cited judgments of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Plastikos Packaging v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 386. 6.2 On applicants above contention Govt. would observe that as per facts on record there is no evidence on record or in the adjudication order....