9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp;The appellants are challenging the Order-in-Original No. 05/2005 dated 14-3-2005 by which the appellant's claim for remission of duty in respect of the goods destroyed in an accidental fire was not accepted by the Commissioner. The facts of the two fire accidents taken place have not been denied. Further the facts that the appellants were manufacturing the goods under licence in the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be seen from Para 18 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has noted that the appellants were able to retrieve parts of the goods destroyed in the second fire accident and they paid Excise duty of Rs. 18,584/-; leaving balance amount of Rs. 88,946/- for remission. He had rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants have not established that they were manufacturing the goods. He had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which were not destroyed in the second fire accident and having cleared on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 18,584/-. There is a clear contradiction in the order, hence the same is set aside. The prayer for remission of duty for the balance goods which have been destroyed in the fire is accepted by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
