9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellants filed application for remission of duty because of damage to their finished goods due to a fire which occurred on 11-5-2002. The same has been rejected by the Commissioner and hence the appeal. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati, ld. C.A. on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Commissioner has rejected the claim of the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted invoices for the same material during the relevant period which show that the actual assessable value in no case for more than what has been cited in the worksheet for arriving at the value of the goods destroyed. 3. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that the invoices are required to be verified by the Revenue and therefore the matter may be sent back. Further he also submits that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me explained in the panchnama supports the case of the party even though the Director had told officers that he did not know the reasons for the fire. Thus there is no doubt that the fire occurred because of an accident. As regard the second point that CENVAT Credit was not reversed, in view of the Larger Bench decision cited by the appellants, the same need not be reversed. As regards insurance c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
