https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267957 Duty demand on excisable goods destroyed in fire did not survive once remission had been granted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that remission order had been upheld by the High Court. The later demand on the same destroyed goods was consequential and inconsistent with the final remission decision, leaving it without independent basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore correctly sustained. en-us Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267957 Duty demand on excisable goods destroyed in fire did not survive once remission had been granted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that remission order had been upheld by the High Court. The later demand on the same destroyed goods was consequential and inconsistent with the final remission decision, leaving it without independent basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore correctly sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267957