Remission for insignificant bottle breakage turns on verified records, tolerance limits, and bona fide claims, not delay alone.

Remission of duty for insignificant breakage of aerated water bottles was considered admissible where the losses were very small, fell below the tolerance indicated in the Board circular, and no separate duty demand had been raised on the alleged lost goods. The circular also contemplated verification from accounts and records during inspection, so filing delay in the remission applications was not by itself decisive. The claim was supported as bona fide by acceptance of similar remission claims in other units, and rejection solely on delay was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible in respect of insignificant breakage of aerated water bottles under the proviso to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, and whether delay in filing the remission applications justified rejection of the claim.

Analysis: The claim was made for breakage of bottles reported over several periods, and the quantities lost were found to be very small, far below the tolerance indicated in the Board circular. No independent duty demand had been raised on the alleged lost goods. The Board circular also indicated that breakage claims were to be verified from accounts and records during inspection, so filing delay by itself was not determinative. The appellant had also shown that similar remission claims had been accepted in other units, and the claim appeared bona fide on the record.

Conclusion: Remission of duty ought to have been granted, and rejection of the applications merely on the ground of delay was unsustainable.

---