Excise remission for fire-destroyed goods extends to finished products and related inputs, materials, and capital goods.

Remission of excise duty was treated as available where finished goods were destroyed in an unavoidable fire, because the destruction of the goods was not in dispute and the remission rule extends to loss by unavoidable accident or natural cause. The text also states that related relief could not be denied for inputs, semi-finished goods, packing material, consumables, and capital goods destroyed in the same fire, as the contrary view was rejected and the Larger Bench approach on input and intermediate-product consequences was applied. Consequential relief was therefore granted on all disputed items.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether remission of duty was allowable on finished goods destroyed in a fire accident; (ii) whether remission or denial of credit-related relief could be sustained in respect of inputs, semi-finished goods, packing material, consumables, and capital goods destroyed in the same fire.

Issue (i): whether remission of duty was allowable on finished goods destroyed in a fire accident.

Analysis: The destruction of the final product in the fire was not in dispute. Remission under the applicable excise remission rule is available for goods destroyed by unavoidable accident or natural cause, and the denial was based on treating the loss of finished goods as unsupported by the facts. The order also did not disturb the occurrence of the fire or the destruction of the goods.

Conclusion: Remission of duty on the finished goods was held allowable and the duty demand on the final product was not sustained.

Issue (ii): whether remission or denial of credit-related relief could be sustained in respect of inputs, semi-finished goods, packing material, consumables, and capital goods destroyed in the same fire.

Analysis: The denial rested on the view that inputs deemed cleared as such, semi-finished goods, packing materials and capital goods stood outside the remission provision. That view was rejected, and the issue of credit involved in the inputs and intermediate products was treated as covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision. On that basis, there was no justification to confirm the amounts relating to those items.

Conclusion: The denial of relief in respect of inputs, semi-finished goods, packing material, consumables, and capital goods was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full and the assessee was granted consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods destroyed in an unavoidable fire are not disputed on facts, remission cannot be denied by drawing an artificial distinction against the finished goods or by excluding connected input and intermediate-product consequences from the statutory remission relief.

---