https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33145 Remission of duty for goods destroyed in a fire cannot be rejected on technical omissions alone where the incident, insurance settlement, prompt reporting and post-fire verification indicate a substantive claim requiring fair scrutiny. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner had focused on missing reports and alleged deficiencies in precautions without fully examining the evidence. It also held that the question of reversal of Cenvat credit had to be reconsidered in light of the Larger Bench view and the later amendment, with the Board's circular and rival submissions assessed afresh. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33145 Remission of duty for goods destroyed in a fire cannot be rejected on technical omissions alone where the incident, insurance settlement, prompt reporting and post-fire verification indicate a substantive claim requiring fair scrutiny. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner had focused on missing reports and alleged deficiencies in precautions without fully examining the evidence. It also held that the question of reversal of Cenvat credit had to be reconsidered in light of the Larger Bench view and the later amendment, with the Board's circular and rival submissions assessed afresh. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33145