2007 (10) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against order of the Commissioner No. 14/T/REMISSION/ VAPI/2006, dt.7-3-2007. 2. Heard, both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) There was a fire accident on the midnight, of 12/13-4-1998 in the premises of appellant and the fire damaged raw materials, finished goods, semi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emission application. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner in denying the remission on the finished goods as well as remission of duty involved on inputs, which are contained in the finished goods which were destroyed in fire and also the remission of duty involved on capital goods are not sound and relies on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Coca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ials, semi-finished goods, packing material and capital goods cannot be treated at part with finished goods for the purpose of remission. Hence, remission cannot be allowed on raw materials, semi-finished goods, packing material and capital goods destroyed in fire accident. The applicant has not reversed the modvat credit on input contained in finished goods destroyed, since the same is not admiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X