9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods destroyed by fire on 22.11.2003 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of application for remission of duty has no consequence as the demand of duty thereon, has already been set aside. - impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/718/2007 - ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm that the goods are not manufactured (final product) and also not entered in RG-1 register. Moreover, the cause of fire was not known, as per provision Rule 21 of Central Excise Rule 2002, the case is not fit for remission. The appellant filed this appeal against the communication dtd 28.3.2007. 2. The learned Advocate submits that by show cause notice dtd 5.11.2004, the Jt.Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the Revenue. We find that the demand of duty on the goods destroyed by fire on 22.11.2003 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of application for remission of duty has no consequence as the demand of duty thereon, has already been set aside. 3. In view to the above discussion we find that the impugned order cannot be sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
