https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116028 The appellate tribunal set aside the decision confirming duty against the appellants for inputs destroyed in a fire incident. The rejection of their plea for remission under Rule 196 due to a prior rejection under Rule 49 was deemed erroneous. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between the rules, highlighting that Rule 196 applies to inputs destroyed by natural causes, not finished goods like Rule 49. The matter was remanded for a proper examination of the remission plea under Rule 196 to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure adherence to the legal provisions. en-us Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:11:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116028 The appellate tribunal set aside the decision confirming duty against the appellants for inputs destroyed in a fire incident. The rejection of their plea for remission under Rule 196 due to a prior rejection under Rule 49 was deemed erroneous. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between the rules, highlighting that Rule 196 applies to inputs destroyed by natural causes, not finished goods like Rule 49. The matter was remanded for a proper examination of the remission plea under Rule 196 to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure adherence to the legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116028