2001 (3) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after taking prior approval and permission of the departmental officers. On 26-11-1991 the assessees filed an application for remission of duty on sugar destroyed by fire in terms of Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the meanwhile, the Department issued three show cause notices. The first was dated 1-10-1991 requiring the assessees to pay duty of Rs. 8,67,085/- on the ground that the assessees had surreptitiously removed a quantity of sugar at the same time giving the excuse that the sugar was washed away by the water sprayed for controlling the fire. Two more show cause notices were issued dated 19-5-1992 and 28-8-1992 demanding duty of Rs. 54,570/- and Rs. 64,855/- respectively. This demand pertained to the lost sugar during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Ltd.). In this judgment the wording in Rule 49 was interpreted in an extremely rigid manner. In effect the Tribunal ruled out the coverage of this rule where the cause of accident was not susceptible to human act. This law has been departed from in almost all the later judgments. In fact in the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pravara SSK Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 414, the facts were almost identical and that is there were no electrical connections and that the workers were "generally not in habit of smoking". The Tribunal in that situation ruled in favour of the assessee. This judgment relies upon similar judgments made in the past. 5. It is true that when the first show cause notice was issued, the assessee had not m....