Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(167)ELT291(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has disallowed the remission of duty on the damaged goods, to them.
2. Shri Manish Gaur, Co-Representative, has contended that the damage to the goods (Pan Masala) occurred due to heavy rain as the rain water entered in the premises wherein the goods were stored therefore, the remission of duty on the damaged goods which became unfit for human consumption, of the disputed amount, deserves to be given.
3. On the other hand the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that the appellants claimed remission of duty in respect of 50 cases of 4 gm. each packing and 48 cases of 1.75 gm each packing, of the Pan Masala on the ground that due to heavy rain, the rain water entered in the factory premises as well as in the bounded store where the goods were stored. But, in my view, their claim for remission of duty involved on the damaged goods of Rs. 3,78,400/- had been rightly disallowed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules as under the said Rule remission can be allowed only if the goods had been lost destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for human consumption or for marketing. Here, the cause alleged by the appellants is that, the rain water due to heavy rain entered in the factory which caused damage to the goods. But this cause could be avoided by taking proper care and precautions. It was their duty to store the goods at a safe place. They cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence of having failed to remove the goods at the time of rain to a safer place. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by them to prove that the goods had become unfit for human consumption. No certificate of any competent authority in this regard has been placed on record by the appellants. If they themselves stored the goods at a place where the rain water could easily enter, they have to suffer. They cannot be absolved of payment of duty on those goods in respect of which they had even got compensation from the insurance company of over Rs. 27 lakhs, amount much more than the duty involved thereon.
5. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.