2017 (4) TMI 935

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on inputs and capital goods. On 29.04.2006 a fire accident took place in the factory of the respondents resulting in loss of finished products, in process materials and also damage to capital goods. The respondents filed an application for remission of duty before the Commissioner. After adjudication, the original authority rejected the request for remission of duty. The same was upheld by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal as well as the Jurisdictional High Court. A show cause notice was issued demanding the duty on the goods destroyed in the fire accident to the tune of Rs. 10,24,720/- along with interest and also demanding to recover an amount of Rs. 40,723/- and Rs. 814/- being the CENVAT Credit taken on inputs. After due proc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngalore and also that the recovery is stayed by the Tribunal. The litigation in respect of the rejection of remission of duty has attained finality. The said judgment passed by the Tribunal is reported in Everest Organics Ltd., (respondent herein) Vs CCE, CUS and ST, Hyderabad-I [2015 (330) ELT 531 (Tri-Bang)] the Tribunal upheld the rejection of request for remission of duty and observed as under: "4. The next submission is that the appellant had taken precautions and therefore the remission should have been given. On going through the impugned order it is seen that in the order-in-original in paragraph 5 (numbered as 6 in the order-in-original) the Commissioner had made the following observation: "As per the FIR filed wi....