TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of duty on excisable goods destroyed in fire survived after remission of duty had been granted and upheld.
Analysis: The remission application had been allowed under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and that order had been upheld in appeal before the High Court. In view of that final determination, the subsequent demand raised on the same destroyed goods had no independent basis. The demand was therefore consequential to, and inconsistent with, the remission already granted.
Conclusion: The demand of duty did not survive and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was correctly sustained.
TaxTMI 
