BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants manufacture Cane Sugar, Molasses and Denatured Ethyl Alcohol falling under Chapter Heading 1701, 1703 and 2204 respectively. They submitted an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow for remission of duty of Rs. 4,22,875/ - in respect of 4,975 qtls. of sugar lost due to fire in their godown No. 21 on 28 -7 -98. They informed the Commissioner of Central Excise vide fax message on 28 -7 -98 that due to short circuit, a fire accident had taken place in that sugar godown No. 21 having stock of 90,489 qtls. of M -31 grade sugar. Simultaneously, they also informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of this fire accident. Subsequently, the Inspector incharge, in his visit to the spot of accident on 1 -8 -98 verified and confirmed the fire having broken out in the godown No. 21 of the party due to short circuiting. On 28 -7 -98, the party requested for shifting of sugar from godown No. 21 to Godown No. 19. This permission was granted by the Range Officer with the direction to store the bags separately and inform the progress. The party vide letter dt. 3 -8 -98 informed the Range Officer that they were not able to ascertain the actual loss and expected to assess the same by 10 -8 -98. On 10 -8 -98, the Range Officer again paid a visit to verify the loss but the party vide their letter dt. 10 -8 -98 expressed their inability to assess the loss and informed the next probable date as 18 -8 -98. Again the party failed to ascertain the actual loss/damage on subsequent visits of the Range Officer to the factory on 26 -8 -98 and 28 -9 -98. The Range Officer vide his letter dt. 8 -10 -98 asked the party to expedite the shifting and report the actual loss. The party vide letter dt. 17 -12 -98 informed the actual loss of 4,975 qtls. of sugar. On 18 -12 -98, they filed the claim for remission of duty. They were however issued a show cause notice dated 29 -3 -2001 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow calling upon them to show cause why the application for remission of duty may not be rejected for the reasons that the fire accident took place due to short circuiting which appeared not a natural cause and also that a claim of Rs. 1,49,08,169/ - for assessed/adjusted loss from Oriental Insurance Co. had been received by them whereas the value of 4,975 qtls. sugar was only Rs. 69,90,720.75. Moreover, it was alleged that the quantity claimed -to have been lost could not be verified by the Central Excise department due to the failure on the part of the party even on frequent visits of the Range Officer. The party filed a reply to the show cause notice but however the Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dt. 24 -8 -2001 has rejected the claim for remission of duty on 4,975 qtls. of sugar.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner. I have heard Shri S.N. Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me. The facts as stated in the order of the Commissioner are not in dispute. The Commissioner in his order has observed as follows : -

(3.) IT would be seen from the above that even on repeated requests and on visits of the Range Officer to the factory premises of the party, they neither informed him about the actual loss of sugar in the fire accident nor did they allow him to verify the same. Even when the Surveyor of the Oriental Insurance Company vide his report dt. 11 -9 -98 had settled the loss of sugar by approving their claim for Rs. 1,49,27,169/ - the party failed to inform the same to the department and get the loss verified from them. Surely, the Departmental Authorities are entitled to verify and ascertain the actual loss at their own since the interest of the Revenue is involved in such loss. Having failed to afford such opportunity to the Department to assess the loss stated to have occurred in the fire accident, the appellants' claim for the remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, remains unsubstantiated. Consequently, I uphold the findings arrived at by the Commissioner in his order and reject the appeal of the party.