2014 (10) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R.k.Mishra, DR JUDGEMENT PER: ARCHANA WADHAWA Both appeals are being disposed of by common order as they arise out of same set of facts and circumstances. 2. Appeal No.E/51/2006 relates to the appellant's claim of remission of duty in respect of final product which were destroyed in the fire. As the said remission application stands rejected by the Commissioner, consequent demand of duty stan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oyed goods. Such remission application was rejected by the Commissioner by observing that the appellant had not installed fir fighting/fire extinguishing equipments; that the report of fire brigade office shows that the time of information about fire was at 2345 hours whereas the appellant in their intimation letter dated 2.4.2003 reported the time to be between 2200 hours to 2300 hours. The insur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vide their order dated 26.5.2008 directed the insurance company to pay claim of Rs. 1.40 crores to the appellant. 6. After hearing learned DR, I find that whatever objections were raised by the Commissioner for denial of remission, stands duly met by the appellant. There is no dispute about the fact of fire as also about the fact of destruction of the goods. In fact the appellant has been prompt ....