- (1.) By way of this order, we shall decide CEA Nos. 78 and 79 of 2013 (M/s. Barodia Plastics Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another). For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CEA No. 79 of 2013. Counsel for the appellant submits that as admittedly there was a fire in the appellant's factory leading to destruction of plant, machinery, raw material, material in process of manufacturing and finished goods, the appellant lodged an FIR as well as filed a claim before the insurance company. The appellant also filed an application for remission from payment of Excise duty but the application was rejected. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 27-12-2009 (Annexure P-1) by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by refusing to consider letter received from the insurance company verifying the accidental fire and affirming that the appellant's claim had been accepted. The Tribunal has held that as the letter does not disclose whether the Insurance Claim includes the element of duty, the appellant's prayer for remission cannot be accepted. Counsel for the appellant submits that consideration by the Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary as insurance companies do not insure against liability to pay Excise duty. It is prayed that as the appellant has placed relevant material to prove an accidental fire and the insurance claim has been accepted by the insurance company, the Tribunal may be directed to re-examine the letter and other material that proves loss on account of an accidental fire.
(2.) Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that the insurance claim was accepted by the insurance company but states that it was for the appellant to prove that the insurance claim did not include the element of duty. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appeal.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;