9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant, a manufacturer of P.U. Foam, foam articles, is in appeal against Order-in-appeal dated 25.04.2008 whereby the penalty imposed vide Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted the show cause notice and stated that they had done their best to minimize the loss by informing the Fire Department immediately by occurrence of fire. Further, they have reversed the Cenvat Credit taken on input, used in the manufacturer of goods amounting to Rs. 30,967/-. They are filling application for remission of duty before Commissioner. Further, the claim submitted to the Insurance Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved, the appellant has preferred appeal before learned Commissioner vide the impugned order having pleased to reject the appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that as the amount was small they have not contested the rejection of remission claim on merits and have deposited the duty as imposed on them. So for the penalty imposed is concern, the learned Counsel states that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the remission claim. The learned Counsel have produced a copy of the Final Order No. A/53749/2014 (SM) order dated 19.09.2014, by which this Tribunal in respect to the fire incident which occurred on 18.06.2004 have held that there is no dispute as to the occurrence of the fire in the factory of the appellant. Further, the rejection of remission claim is without any justified reason. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
