Remission of excise duty for fire-destroyed goods fails when rejection order is non-speaking and unsupported by reasons.

Remission of central excise duty on finished goods destroyed by fire could not be rejected through a non-speaking order that failed to address the decisive facts. The authority had denied relief on the basis that the godown was undeclared and that precautions were inadequate, but gave no reasons for those conclusions or for disregarding the appellant's case. An order affecting fiscal relief must show application of mind to the material issues; otherwise it is arbitrary and unsustainable. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh speaking order after giving the appellant written and oral opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's rejection of remission of duty on excisable goods destroyed by fire, passed without adequate reasons and without proper consideration of the facts, could be sustained; and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The request was made for remission of central excise duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire in the factory godown under the proviso to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order rejected the claim on the grounds that the godown was not declared and that proper precautions were not taken, but it did not explain why the godown was treated as undeclared or why the precautions were considered insufficient. An order rejecting remission that does not disclose reasons on the material issues is non-speaking and cannot be sustained, as the decision-making process must show application of mind to the facts and contentions before the authority.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remanded for passing a fresh speaking order after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of written representation and personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A refusal of remission of duty affecting vested fiscal relief cannot stand when it is unsupported by reasons on the decisive factual questions and is therefore arbitrary and non-speaking; such an order must be reconsidered de novo after affording due opportunity.

---