TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. 2. Happenings that has been given rise to this litigation is that fire incident occurred in the appellants factory engaged in manufacturing of disposable safety razor blades, shaving kits etc. on 02.06.1998. Appellant reported the matter to the Fire Brigade, local Police Station, Thane Municipal Corporation and to the Insurance Authorities soon after the occurrence against which it got insurance reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 31,56,076/- on 22.03.2000 including fire damage and other losses. After being pointed out by the Audit Officer, appellant intimated the matter of loss of finished product and capital goods including plastic moulds on 12.01.2001 to the respondent-department and filed remission application under Rule 49 of the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or filing application for remission and the internal manual prescribing reporting of such incidence to the department within 24 hours of occurrence is a procedural lapse which can be remediable and basing on the decision reported in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nhava Sheva Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. - 2011 (272) ELT 161 (Bom.) and VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II - 2017 (352) ELT 507 (Tri.-Ahmd.) etc., he further submitted that there was no requirement to reverse the credit availed on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of goods destroyed in fire, for which the Commissioner observation that the said goods which were lost in fire could not be put to use to make the credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r officer could not have got the particulars to assess the destruction as reporting was done about 2 ½ years of the occurrence but going by the show-cause notice, one can very well infer that the duty demand has been made on the basis of damage assessed by the insurance authorities. This being so, it can be said that assessment had been made by the department concerning the exact damage on which duty demand has been raised but remission was refused for the reason that application for remission was put after an unreasonable delay. Unreasonable delay is, of course, a question of fact and the same varies from case to case. In the instant case, there was no strict adherence to the internal manual of the department noted in the Order-in-O....