2006 (3) TMI 653

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;The appellants are challenging the Order-in-Original No. 05/2005 dated 14-3-2005 by which the appellant's claim for remission of duty in respect of the goods destroyed in an accidental fire was not accepted by the Commissioner. The facts of the two fire accidents taken place have not been denied. Further the facts that the appellants were manufacturing the goods under licence in the premises of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....can be seen from Para 18 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has noted that the appellants were able to retrieve parts of the goods destroyed in the second fire accident and they paid Excise duty of Rs. 18,584/-; leaving balance amount of Rs. 88,946/- for remission. He had rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants have not established that they were manufacturing the goods. He had p....