https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52078 Delay in intimating loss of damaged excisable goods was treated as a procedural lapse that did not by itself defeat remission where the extent of damage could be ascertained only after waterlogging receded. The damage arose from heavy rain and waterlogging, and the insurance settlement supported that loss had occurred. However, the refund aspect required limited verification of whether the insurance recovery included the duty component, since the record below had not examined that issue. Denial of remission solely for delayed intimation was therefore not justified, and the duty refund question was remitted for fresh scrutiny of the insurance documents. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52078 Delay in intimating loss of damaged excisable goods was treated as a procedural lapse that did not by itself defeat remission where the extent of damage could be ascertained only after waterlogging receded. The damage arose from heavy rain and waterlogging, and the insurance settlement supported that loss had occurred. However, the refund aspect required limited verification of whether the insurance recovery included the duty component, since the record below had not examined that issue. Denial of remission solely for delayed intimation was therefore not justified, and the duty refund question was remitted for fresh scrutiny of the insurance documents. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52078