Remission of duty on fire-damaged goods requires prompt verification of actual loss; unverified claims fail.

Remission of duty on sugar lost in fire was unavailable because the assessee did not prove the actual loss to the satisfaction of the excise authorities. Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required prompt and satisfactory verification of the quantity destroyed, but the damaged stock was not produced for inspection, departmental verification was repeatedly delayed, and the loss was reported only after a long gap. The claim therefore lacked evidentiary support, and remission was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible when the assessee failed to get the quantity of sugar lost in fire verified by the Central Excise officers and the actual loss remained unsubstantiated.

Analysis: Remission under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the assessee to show to the satisfaction of the proper officer the actual loss suffered. The record showed repeated visits by the Range Officer, yet the damaged stock was not produced for verification and the assessee kept postponing ascertainment of loss. The loss was reported by the assessee after a long delay, without departmental verification, and the claim therefore lacked evidentiary support for the quantity said to have been destroyed.

Conclusion: The remission claim was rightly rejected and the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee did not establish the actual loss to the satisfaction of the excise authorities, so remission of duty was not available.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for remission of duty on goods lost in fire must be supported by prompt and satisfactory verification of the actual loss by the excise authorities; without such proof, the claim cannot succeed.

---