Remission of duty for natural loss cannot be denied merely for missing 24-hour intimation when loss is otherwise established.

Remission of duty under Rule 21 was available where molasses were lost by natural causes, and the decisive issue was whether the loss was established. The record showed that remission applications had been filed, the shortage remained within the prescribed limit, and there was no evidence disproving the loss. Rule 21 did not impose a 24-hour intimation requirement as a condition precedent to remission. A substantive statutory benefit could not be denied on a technical objection where the loss itself was not controverted, so the denial of remission was unsustainable and relief was due.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on molasses lost during storage could be denied merely because intimation of the loss was not shown to have been given within 24 hours.

Analysis: Remission under Rule 21 is available where goods are lost by natural causes, and the decisive question is whether the loss is established. The record showed that remission applications had been filed, the shortage was within the prescribed limit, and there was no evidence to disprove the loss. Rule 21 did not prescribe a 24-hour intimation requirement as a condition precedent to remission. A substantive statutory benefit could not be refused on a technical ground when the loss itself was not controverted.

Conclusion: The denial of remission was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---