https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342241 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the remission claim under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and dismissing the consequential demand for duty and Cenvat credit reversal. The Commissioner's denial of the remission claim was found unjustified as the Tribunal determined there was no negligence on the appellant's part in mitigating the loss caused by an accidental fire. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the rule amendment and circular cited by the revenue were not applicable in this case, leading to the dismissal of the consequential demands. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342241 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the remission claim under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and dismissing the consequential demand for duty and Cenvat credit reversal. The Commissioner's denial of the remission claim was found unjustified as the Tribunal determined there was no negligence on the appellant's part in mitigating the loss caused by an accidental fire. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the rule amendment and circular cited by the revenue were not applicable in this case, leading to the dismissal of the consequential demands. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342241