Remission of duty for fire loss cannot be denied where same-day intimation was sent and no preventable negligence was shown.

Remission of duty on inputs and final products destroyed in a fire accident could not be denied merely because intimation was said to be delayed, where a telegram had been sent on the date of the fire and received by the department. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that loss caused by an unavoidable accident, without evidence of preventable negligence, does not justify refusal of remission on the ground that the loss was not a natural cause. On that basis, the rejection of remission was held unsustainable and the assessee's claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on inputs and final products destroyed in a fire accident was liable to be denied on the grounds of delayed intimation and the fire not being a natural cause for loss.

Analysis: The appellants had sent a telegram on the date of the fire, which was received by the department, so the allegation of late intimation could not sustain the rejection. The loss arose from destruction of goods in a fire accident, and the Tribunal applied the settled principle that where loss is caused by an unavoidable accident and there is no evidence of preventable negligence, remission cannot be denied on the footing that the loss was not natural.

Conclusion: The rejection of remission was unsustainable and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---