Duty remission for flood-damaged excisable goods cannot be denied when loss beyond control is otherwise established.

Remission of duty was found admissible for cut-tobacco damaged by flooding and cleared without payment of duty. The record showed heavy rain and flood damage, fungus growth and stock loss, and the assessee had informed the department before removal of the damaged goods. Clearance took place in the presence of the insurance surveyor and with municipal concurrence. In these circumstances, further insistence on exact quantification of loss or separate proof of destruction was held unwarranted, as Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits remission where goods are destroyed or rendered unfit by circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible for cut-tobacco damaged in flooding and cleared without payment of duty.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been damaged by heavy rain and flood, with survey material showing fungus growth and loss of stock. The assessee had intimated the department about the flood damage before removal of the damaged cut-tobacco, and the clearance was made in the presence of the insurance surveyor and with municipal concurrence. In these circumstances, the authority's insistence on further proof of exact loss or destruction was not justified. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permitted remission where goods were destroyed or rendered unfit by circumstances beyond the assessee's control, and the factual record supported that position.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was allowable and the rejection of the remission request was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the assessee obtained relief against the order denying remission of duty on the flood-damaged cut-tobacco.

Ratio Decidendi: When excisable goods are proved to have been damaged by flood and the department is timely informed, remission cannot be denied merely for want of subsequent exact quantification or formal destruction proof if the record otherwise establishes loss beyond the assessee's control.

---