https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350869 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand under Section 11D (1A) of the Central Excise Act. It was held that the appellant, who did not manufacture the capital goods destroyed in the fire, did not collect duty on excisable goods from the insurance claim. The insurance claim for replacement costs, including excise duty, did not result in double benefit as alleged by the Revenue. The decision clarified that the appellant did not contravene the Act and provided consequential relief. en-us Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350869 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand under Section 11D (1A) of the Central Excise Act. It was held that the appellant, who did not manufacture the capital goods destroyed in the fire, did not collect duty on excisable goods from the insurance claim. The insurance claim for replacement costs, including excise duty, did not result in double benefit as alleged by the Revenue. The decision clarified that the appellant did not contravene the Act and provided consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350869