2015 (3) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, AR JUDGEMENT Per: Archana Wadhwa: The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PU foam falling under Chapter 39. Fire broke in the appellants factory on 18.6.04. The intimation was given to the Deputy Commissioner on 18.6.04 itself. The fire station officer was also informed on the same very date and fire brigade was sent to the appellants facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same. 3. The appellants subsequently filed the remission application for Rs. 11,90,775/- in respect of goods destroyed in their factory as also the one destroyed in the job workers factory. The Commissioner has rejected the remission application on the ground that appellants have not been able to show that they have taken all reasonable care and due precautions to prevent occurrence of fire in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss of stock. As regards the destruction of the goods in the job workers factory admittedly the receipted goods were work-in-progress and were not the finished goods. Though I am of the view that such semi finished goods are also entitled to the remission of duty but even if the Commissioners' stand is accepted, no duty liability would arise in respect of semi-finished goods to duty of excis....