https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35422 The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The Member (T) found the appellants' explanation for the fire incident credible, supported by evidence and the panchnama detailing the circumstances. It was determined that the reversal of CENVAT Credit was not required based on a Larger Bench decision. Verification of invoice values confirmed that the insurance claim did not cover the excise duty portion. The appellants successfully demonstrated that the goods were lost in an unavoidable accident, leading to the rejection of the Commissioner's decision and the grant of remission of duty. en-us Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35422 The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The Member (T) found the appellants' explanation for the fire incident credible, supported by evidence and the panchnama detailing the circumstances. It was determined that the reversal of CENVAT Credit was not required based on a Larger Bench decision. Verification of invoice values confirmed that the insurance claim did not cover the excise duty portion. The appellants successfully demonstrated that the goods were lost in an unavoidable accident, leading to the rejection of the Commissioner's decision and the grant of remission of duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35422