M/s Everest Composites Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise – Vadodara-I
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1133 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI
CESTAT AHMEDABAD – AT
Dated:- 27-3-2018
E/11876/2017 – A/10999/2018
Central Excise
Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. D. Gohil, Advocate
For Respondent (s): Shri J. Nagori, AR
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIO No. VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-19-17-18 dated 05.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara-I.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and on accident of fire took place in the premises of the appellant on 15.03.2012 at 18.30 hrs. The said fire has resulted in loss/damages of finished/semi finished goods, raw material/input etc. The appellant filed an FIR with the Taluka Police Station, Vadodara on 16.03.2012 and consequently, the police panchnama was drawn on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
solely on the ground that there was a delay of 5 days in filing the intimation of the fire accident with the department and the remission application has been filed consequent to the notice dated 05.04.2013 issued to the appellant. He submits that even though there was a delay in filing the remission application with the department, but, necessary intimation was filed with the police station and the police have drawn panchnama in their premises recording the accident of fire in their premises. Also, he has submitted that they have produced necessary evidence to establish that the accident of fire took place and there was damage of finished goods and raw materials in the factory premises. It is his contention that the insurance company has compensated for the damages due to the accident of fire, net of excise duty; hence, they filed remission application belatedly with the department. It is his further contention that from the documents in their possession, the extent of damages and lo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n – 2016 (342) ELT 159 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and Sam Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II – 2016 (337) ELT 146 (Tri.-Del.). Further, he has submitted that there is no stipulation of time under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for filing the remission application immediately on destructions of the goods due to the accident of fire or unavoidable accident. He has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority so as to enable to them to file necessary evidence in support their claim for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in fire as on 15.03.2012.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating authority.
5. I find that on going through the impugned order particularly Para 17 of the order, the Ld. Commissioner has observed that there was a delay of 6 days in filing intimation of the accident of fire with the department. It is her reasoning that since there was delay in filing the intimation with the department, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =