Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. J.J. Foams (P) Limited vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 18 March, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2007-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 09/Commr/GZB/07 dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. J.J. Foams (P) Limited Appellant Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant; Shri M.M. Singh, D.R. for the Revenue; Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 18th March, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
None appeared on behalf of the appellants. Vide their letter dated 17.3.2009 learned Consultant informed that he is unable to attend hearing on account of old age problems and requested for adjournment.
2. After hearing learned D.R. and on perusal of the records, I find that the matter can be decided on the basis of the records available in the file.
3. Learned D.R. submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected remission application on the basis of report of the Suptd., Central Excise stating that there had been fire accident in the same unit on 18.6.2004 and they have not taken any precaution and, therefore, the accident on 12.12.2005 occurred due to failure of taking necessary precaution. He further submits that the appellants had not filed any document namely, States Fire Brigate report, insurance certificate, etc. in order to establish the fire accident.
4. On perusal of the appeal memo and after hearing learned D.R., I find that the appellants filed their claim for loss with the insurance company on 31.1.2006. It is revealed from the impugned order that the appellants assured the adjudicating authority to submit the report as soon as it is available to them. In view of that impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad to examine the matter on the basis of evidences. The appellants are also directed to produce the evidences at the time of hearing before the Commissioner of Central Excise. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK