9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against order-in-original no.02/KCG/MUM-III/2014-15 dated 24th October 2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III pertaining to the rejection of application for remission of duty under rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The application was made vide letter dated 9th February 2012 seeking remission of Rs. 6,83,269 being the duty liability on goods valued at Rs. 82,92,100 claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty from the settlement that was to be obtained from the insurer and once again rejected the claim for remission. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Barodia Plastics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (315) ELT 357 (P&H)] had set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of claimant for remissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess payment of Excise duty. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant has not proved that the insurance claim does not include Excise duty, is not considered opinion perverse and, therefore, could not form the basis for dismissing the appeal.' it was pointed out that the competent authority had, without support of law, rejected the claim for remission. 4. Learned Authorized Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that appellant has since withdrawn the insurance claim. 7. In the circumstances of the decision in re Barodia Plastics Pvt Ltd obviating a scrutiny of the extent of the claim for insurance and the limited application of the circular cited on behalf of Revenue, the rejection of remission is without authority of law and is set aside. The appellants claim for remission is allowed. (Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
