Remission of duty cannot be denied where destroyed goods were duly noticed, certified unfit, and the department stayed silent.

Where an assessee gives prior notice of flood-damaged goods, repeatedly informs the department, and destroys the goods only after certification that they are unfit for human consumption, remission of duty cannot be refused merely because Central Excise officers were not present at the destruction. The department's silence in response to the notices and the assessee's bona fide conduct supported substantial compliance with Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. On those facts, rejection of the remission request on the sole ground of officer absence was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty could be denied on the ground that the finished goods were destroyed without the presence of Central Excise officers, despite prior intimation to the department and certification that the goods were unfit for human consumption.

Analysis: The appellant had repeatedly informed the department about the flood damage, the condition of the goods, and the proposal to destroy them, but received no response. The goods were ultimately destroyed with intimation to the authorities and a certificate from the Food and Drug Authority confirming that they were unfit for human consumption. In these circumstances, the failure of the department to act on the remission request or to respond to the notices could not be used to defeat the claim. The requirement under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as substantially complied with, and the rejection based only on the absence of Central Excise officers at the time of destruction was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: Remission of duty could not be denied on this ground, and the rejection of the remission applications was unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee gives prior notice, acts bona fide, and destroys goods certified as unfit for human consumption after repeated unanswered requests to the department, remission cannot be refused merely because Central Excise officers were not present at the destruction.

---