2005 (1) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard Shri P.R. Biswas, Consultant for Appellant and Shri K. Sanyal, JDR for Respondent. Learned Consultant submits that the Appellants are the manufacturer of goods falling under Heading No. 39.23 of the Central Excise Tariff. Its factory is situated at Rampur, Budge Budge Tank Road, 24-Parganas (South). On 18-5-2000 a devastating fire broke out at the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals in his order dated 12-12-2003 has observed that : "There is no doubt that the fire was accidental. The Commissioner of Central Excise is the competent Authority in the instant case to grant the remission of duty. While replying to the SCN, the appellant had endorsed a copy of the same to the Commissioner of Central Excise on 12-11-2001 requesting him to treat the reply as a prayer to remi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty is not the same thing as liability of duty or accordingly, though duty is attracted on manufacture or production, the demand to collect the same arises only when the exciseable goods are to be issued out. 6. In present case, the goods were not issued out of the factory. The goods were destroyed due to fire and the appellant is entitled for remission. His request for remission of duty i....