https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75093 Remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire was wrongly rejected where the factory was closed on a holiday, the loss was reported soon after the incident, and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules does not prescribe a time limit for intimation of fire loss. An executive trade notice could not impose such a restriction. The further objection, based on alleged failure to use fire-prevention equipment, was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances of the accident. The rejection on both grounds was therefore unjustified, the order was set aside, and the remission claim was remanded for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75093 Remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire was wrongly rejected where the factory was closed on a holiday, the loss was reported soon after the incident, and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules does not prescribe a time limit for intimation of fire loss. An executive trade notice could not impose such a restriction. The further objection, based on alleged failure to use fire-prevention equipment, was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances of the accident. The rejection on both grounds was therefore unjustified, the order was set aside, and the remission claim was remanded for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75093