COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MARAL OVERSEAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.K. Mathur, learned DR, for the Revenue and Shri Amit Jain, learned Advocate for the respondents. As per facts on record respondent is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of yam, fabric and garments. A fire broke in their factory on 16 -8 -1995 resulting in damage and loss of their final products. Intimation about the fire was given to their Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on 17 -8 -1995, who visited their factory on 18 -8 -1995 and assessed the damage. A certificate was issued on 18 -8 -1995 indicating that there was a loss of about 39.580 MT to the knitted fabrics.

(2.) ON the above basis respondent filed an application for remission of duty in respect of above damaged goods. By way of separate proceedings Revenue also sought to confirm the demand. Vide the present impugned order, passed in de novo proceedings, Commissioner has allowed the remission as also dropped the demand of duty.

(3.) WE find that while dealing with the contention Commissioner has observed as under: