2017 (10) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y M/s. Watson Pharma Pvt. Ltd. against denial of remission of duty on the inputs and semi-finished goods lost by them on account of fire in the premises. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the said claim has been denied on three grounds. First ground is that while the fire occurred in the month of February 2012 and the claim was filed in the month of August 2012. The second ground for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nded area. He argued that no findings in respect of this assertion has been given by the adjudicating authority. He further argued that the semi-finished goods are excisable goods and therefore, Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules would apply for the claim of remission of duty on the said goods. He further pointed out that a show-cause notice demanding duty on the said intermediate goods was issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n-avoidable accident, without any concrete basis. Now the appellants have produced a final report of the insurance company and the Commissioner did not have the benefit of the same while adjudicating. If the fire was due to negligence on the part of the appellant then the said goods find place in the report of the insurance company. 6. In view of the above facts, I find that the impugned order ca....