Tribunal grants remission of Central Excise duty on cotton fabrics destroyed in fire

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting remission of Central Excise duty on cotton grey fabrics destroyed in a fire. It was determined that the appellant, despite the godown not being initially registered, was entitled to remission as the department's lack of objection to storing goods in the godown indicated its acceptance as part of the approved premises. The appellant's compliance with duty payment on finished goods stored in the godown further supported their entitlement to remission, leading to a favorable outcome with consequential relief granted in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of remission of Central Excise duty on destroyed cotton grey fabrics due to premises not being part of registered premises.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original denying remission of Central Excise duty on cotton grey fabrics destroyed in a fire. The appellant claimed the godown on the first floor as part of their registered premises, while the department argued it was not registered, thus remission was not applicable.

2. The appellant, a new assessee under Excise levy in 2003, registered Gala No. 4 on the ground floor but later informed the department about the godown on the first floor. The appellant stored finished goods there, cleared them on duty payment, and informed the department about the fire incident and goods destroyed. The department asked for Cenvat Credit reversal but did not demand duty on the finished goods earlier stored in the godown.

3. The appellant contended that the department never objected to storing goods in the godown, treating it as part of the factory. Citing a Tribunal decision, the appellant argued for remission approval. The Revenue argued the godown was not registered, hence remission was not applicable.

4. The Tribunal noted duty remission applies when duty is payable on destroyed goods, which was not paid by the appellant. The department's lack of objection to storing goods in the godown and not demanding duty earlier indicated its acceptance of the godown as part of the approved premises. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to remission, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.

---