2015 (4) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 24.11.2002, fire broke out in the factory of the appellant and certain inputs, semi finished goods, unfinished goods, finished goods and capital goods were destroyed. These facts are not in dispute. The appellant filed the remission claim of duty on the goods lost in fire. The adjudicating authority rejected their remission claim and consequently a show cause notice was issued to demand duty on finished goods, unfinished goods / semi finished goods and capital goods. The show cause notice was adjudicated. Demand on duty was confirmed along with interest. Aggrieved from the said orders appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that while denying the remission claim under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unfinished goods denial of remission of duty is correct, relying on the decision in the case of Deepak Tandon (Supra). Consequently, appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat Credit contained in unfinished / semi-finished goods. He further submits that on capital goods, the capital goods have been destroyed before their estimated life. In that case proportionate credit is required to be denied. He also submits that the appellant got claim from the insurance company. Therefore, that proportionate Cenvat Credit is to be considered for denial of the Cenvat Credit. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. In this case the following issues are required to be decided: a) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim remission ....