TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants duly informed the said factum of fire to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise as also to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Thereafter, lot of correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities as regards the reversal of the Cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs which were destroyed; as regards the extent of the loss of goods on various stages ie., at raw material stage, semi-finished goods and finished goods. Appellants were also directed to provide the details/documents in worksheets giving all the particulars of the loss, details of the precaution taken by them, details of the goods salvaged, details of their insurance claim and details of investigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the appellate authority reduced the demand to Rs. 20,23,204/- after adjusting duty amount of Rs. 24,46,445/- paid by the appellants on waste and scrap salvaged from the destroyed goods and sold on payment of duty. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Subramaniaym, AC (AR) for the Revenue. 6. On going through the impugned order, I find that there is no dispute as regards the factum of fire and consequent damage to the appellant's final products. The lower authorities have held that in as much as the appellants had not applied for remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, their plea for remission of duty ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith details is also not being disputed. Tribunal in the case of Mira Chemicals v. CCE, Surat-II [2009 (234) E.L.T. 328 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] held that in the absence of dispute about the occurrence of fire and resultant destruction of goods, remission of duty demand, cannot be made on the sole ground that remission application was not applied for. Tribunal held that remission application is only a procedure required to be adopted by an assessee and would not result in denial of benefit of Rule 21. Similarly, in the case of IG Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VII [2001 (132) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Mum.)], it was held that in the absence of any contest to the fact of flood and resultant damage, issuance of show cause notice raising the demand on the sole....