https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171735 Where the Tribunal's findings showed that finished goods were destroyed in an accidental fire, remission of duty was sustained because those findings were evidence-based and no perversity was shown. Cenvat credit on inputs destroyed in the fire was also not required to be reversed, as the Tribunal followed the applicable Larger Bench precedent and no substantial question of law arose. The insurance claim did not bar relief because the invoices showed that the excise duty component was not included in the claim. The High Court therefore found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order and declined interference in the absence of a substantial question of law under Section 35G. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 May 2017 06:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171735 Where the Tribunal's findings showed that finished goods were destroyed in an accidental fire, remission of duty was sustained because those findings were evidence-based and no perversity was shown. Cenvat credit on inputs destroyed in the fire was also not required to be reversed, as the Tribunal followed the applicable Larger Bench precedent and no substantial question of law arose. The insurance claim did not bar relief because the invoices showed that the excise duty component was not included in the claim. The High Court therefore found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order and declined interference in the absence of a substantial question of law under Section 35G. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171735