https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356905 Duty on goods destroyed in a factory fire was examined in the context of Rule 21 remission and limitation under the extended period. The text states that the fire and destruction of stock were undisputed and promptly reported to the department, and that failure to file a remission application did not justify confirming duty on goods that had not been cleared from the factory. It further explains that, because the department had timely knowledge of the loss, invocation of the extended limitation period was not sustainable in the absence of suppression, fraud, or misstatement, and the demand was barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:54:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356905 Duty on goods destroyed in a factory fire was examined in the context of Rule 21 remission and limitation under the extended period. The text states that the fire and destruction of stock were undisputed and promptly reported to the department, and that failure to file a remission application did not justify confirming duty on goods that had not been cleared from the factory. It further explains that, because the department had timely knowledge of the loss, invocation of the extended limitation period was not sustainable in the absence of suppression, fraud, or misstatement, and the demand was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356905