https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436843 A remission claim for goods destroyed in fire under Rule 21 had to be decided first, because the earlier rejection had already been set aside for lack of reasons and remanded for fresh consideration. In that setting, confirmation of protective duty under Section 11A(1), along with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Rule 25, could not stand as a final and independent determination while remission proceedings remained pending. The appellate order confirming the demand was set aside, and the matter was directed back to the original authority for fresh decision in compliance with the earlier remand. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436843 A remission claim for goods destroyed in fire under Rule 21 had to be decided first, because the earlier rejection had already been set aside for lack of reasons and remanded for fresh consideration. In that setting, confirmation of protective duty under Section 11A(1), along with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Rule 25, could not stand as a final and independent determination while remission proceedings remained pending. The appellate order confirming the demand was set aside, and the matter was directed back to the original authority for fresh decision in compliance with the earlier remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436843