2010 (6) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r passed by the Commissioner under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? (B)      Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the respondent to remission of duty even though the respondent has failed to give any evidence to show that the goods were lost in unavoidable accident or due to natural cause? (C)     Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that no reversal of Cenvat credit on the inputs destroyed in fire is required in the light of the decision of Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore reported in 2007 (20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence to show that it had not claimed/received the duty element of the value of the goods destroyed from the insurance company. Attention was invited to Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (the Rules) to submit that the Tribunal has taken into consideration fresh evidence which was produced before it without following the procedure as prescribed under the said rule. 4. Dealing with the last contention first, viz. non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules, a perusal of the proposed questions indicates that no such question has been proposed in relation thereto. 5. Examining the case on merits, as can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribun....