2013 (10) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Petitioner. Shri Nishant Mishra, Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi for the appellant-department. Sri Nishant Mishra appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- "(a) Whether inputs damaged in fire could be c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, Central Excise Div. III, Ghaziabad, dropped the demand to the tune of Rs. 66,37,590/- and 86,49,445.86. 4. The Department filed the appeals on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has worked out the amount of Modvat credit on the basis of insurance claim filed by the respondent, without mentioning as to the admissibility/correctness of the same; the Adjudicating Authority had accepted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue simply pleaded that the demand was dropped without any verification. The Tribunal further found that the plea was raised, without any evidence to rebut the findings of fact given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We do not find any error of facts or in law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the Adjudicating Authority had taken into consideration all the discrepancies pointed out by....