2017 (12) TMI 704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and on 03.03.2005 the departmental officers visited the factory of the appellant and panchnama was draw for the goods lost in fire accident. Thereafter, on 20.07.2005 the appellant filed the application under Rule 21 of CER, 2002, for remission of duty on finished goods lost in fire accident. The appellant was replied by the Revenue on 02.08.2005 that the said claim can be admitted and complied with as per the condition of Notification No 16/05 dated 16.06.2005. The appellant submitted the application with requisite details/information/documents on 08.08.2005 but, again it was returned to the appellant on the ground that they have not complied with the conditions of said Notification. Thereafter, after various correspondences, on 04.10.2006 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itions of Notification No. 16/05 dated 16.06.2005 and rejected their claim of remission of duty which was not required to be done. He submits that in the light of the decision of Grasim Industries (supra), the appellant was not required to reverse the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and finished goods lost in fire accident. He further submitted that as the claim has been sanctioned by the insurance company, therefore, there was no malafide intention of the appellant to claim inadmissible remission of duty and the fire accident took place was unavoidable. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that onus of the appellant to prove that there was unavoidable circumstances and the appellant has taken proper precaution to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t circumstances, the claim of remission of duty cannot be rejected on the said ground. 7. Further, I find that in the light of the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries (supra) the appellant was not required to reverse the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs gone in manufacturing of final goods lost in fire accident, therefore, no reversal of Cenvat credit was required to be reversed by the appellant. 8. With these terms, I hold that the appellant is entitled to claim of remission of duty of the finished goods lost in fire accident. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X