Remission of duty for goods destroyed in an accidental fire cannot be refused on a mere allegation of carelessness.

Remission of duty cannot be denied merely because excisable goods destroyed in a factory fire were alleged to have been lost through carelessness. Where the fire is reported to the authorities and the record does not show mala fides, the incident is treated as an accident for the purpose of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In that situation, whether the assessee took reasonable care to avoid the fire is not relevant. The denial of remission was therefore not sustainable, and remission of duty with consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was rightly denied on the ground that the excisable goods destroyed in fire were lost due to the assessee's carelessness.

Analysis: The goods were destroyed in a factory fire and the incident was reported to the authorities. The record did not show any mala fide on the part of the assessee. The finding that the fire was caused by carelessness was not justified for the purpose of remission under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Once the incident is accepted as an accident, the question whether reasonable care was taken to avoid it is not relevant.

Conclusion: Denial of remission was not sustainable. The assessee was entitled to remission of duty and consequential relief.

---