TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific issue to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the amount settled by the insurance company after verification of the documents. The Commissioner, on remand, noted that though the Tribunal had remanded a specific issue to the adjudicating authority, but still proceeded to observe that since the entire order of the adjudicating authority was under appeal before the Tribunal, it was necessary to consider all the aspects covered by the earlier order that was under challenge before the Tribunal. Thus, after examining the entire matter, the Commissioner observed as follows:- "5. In view of above, pass the order as follows: a. I allow remission of duty of Rs. 1,19,232.00 only, pertaining to duty on finished goods. b. I drop demand of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that remission of central excise duty was also required in case of finished and semi-finished goods destroyed in fire and, therefore, requested the Department for remission of the central excise duty on semi-finished goods as well as finished goods. 7. A show cause notice dated 27 August, 2009 was, however, issued to the appellant proposing to reject the remission of central excise duty on the ground that the fire accident cannot be treated as a natural cause or unavoidable accident and, therefore, central excise duty of Rs.40,97,341/- was payable by the appellant. The show cause notice also required the appellant to pay interest on CENVAT credit of Rs.41,01,620/- belatedly reversed by the appellant. The appellant submitted a detailed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the semi-finished goods, for the reason that excise duty is a levy on the manufacture of the goods and unless goods are removed from the factory, no duty liability can be fastened against the assessee. In this case, since the semi-finished goods have not been removed from the factory, duty demand is not in conformity with the statutory provisions, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Urmi Chemicals vs. CCE-Mumbai-II reported in 2014 (301) ELT 356 (Tri. - Mum). The Cenvat Statute find that cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product and the semi-finished goods available in the factory were wrongly reversed by the appellant based on the request made by the Range Officers. nowhere pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration of the actual amount settled by the Insurance Company upon verification of the documents submitted/to be submitted by the appellant. 8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority for ascertaining the claim amount settled by Insurance company. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." (emphasis supplied) 10. It is, therefore, clear that the adjudicating authority, on remand, had only to examine the actual amount settled by the insurance company upon verification of the documents submitted by the appellant, but the Commissioner proceeded to examine all the issues. 11. In this context, it needs to be noted that the Commissioner framed the following three issues for consideration:- a. Whether t....