https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267852 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's decision to reject the remission claim. It found that the Original Authority's reasoning was flawed as the destruction of goods precluded duty liability. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of legal basis for rejecting the claim, noting that the fire did not benefit the appellants and that no duty should apply since the goods were destroyed and not cleared. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellants. en-us Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267852 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's decision to reject the remission claim. It found that the Original Authority's reasoning was flawed as the destruction of goods precluded duty liability. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of legal basis for rejecting the claim, noting that the fire did not benefit the appellants and that no duty should apply since the goods were destroyed and not cleared. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267852