TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission is not very long - the Commissioner (Appeals) have not given any findings with respect to the remission under Rule 23 of the Customs Act and therefore, to that extent the said order is not a speaking order. Also, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the fire broke out due to negligence and not un-avoidable accident, without any concrete basis - matter remanded to the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim was filed in the month of August 2012. The second ground for rejection is that the claim of remission of duty is in respect of raw materials and semi-finished goods and not finished goods. The Commissioner has observed that the Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, applies only to finished goods and not to raw materials and semi-finished goods. The third ground of rejection is that the fire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice demanding duty on the said intermediate goods was issued to them. 2.2 He further pointed out that at the time of adjudication only the interim report of insurance claim was available. He produced the final report of the insurance claim in the Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that there is no time limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance company. 6. In view of the above facts, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide afresh after going into the final report of the insurance company and after examining the claim of the appellant under Section 23 of the Customs Act. He is also required to determine if the semi-finish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
