https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344490 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning liability for duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire. The Tribunal held that duty payment is required only when goods are fully manufactured and that denial of remission for not filing an application was unjustified. The failure to file a remission application did not warrant denial of duty remission, and the demand for duty on lost goods without considering remission was deemed unjustified. Additionally, the demand raised invoking a larger period of limitation was found unsustainable due to prompt reporting of the fire incident to the Revenue, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344490 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning liability for duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire. The Tribunal held that duty payment is required only when goods are fully manufactured and that denial of remission for not filing an application was unjustified. The failure to file a remission application did not warrant denial of duty remission, and the demand for duty on lost goods without considering remission was deemed unjustified. Additionally, the demand raised invoking a larger period of limitation was found unsustainable due to prompt reporting of the fire incident to the Revenue, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344490