Remission of duty for fire-destroyed goods cannot be refused on bare non-satisfaction, insurance coverage, or exempt-input objections.

Remission of duty could not be denied for final products and inputs destroyed in a factory fire where contemporaneous evidence such as departmental intimation, FIR, fire brigade report, insurance survey and loss certification established the destruction. A bare statement of non-satisfaction, without recorded reasons, was insufficient to remission. The existence of insurance did not create any legal requirement to insure the duty element or defeat remission. Inputs received under exemption notifications were also not a valid ground to deny remission when they were later destroyed. The impugned orders were set aside and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty could be denied in respect of final products and inputs destroyed in a factory fire merely because the authority was not satisfied about the claim, because the goods were insured, or because the inputs had been procured without payment of duty under exemption notifications.

Analysis: The factory fire was supported by contemporaneous evidence, including intimation to the department, FIR, fire brigade report, insurance survey, and certification of loss. Rejection of remission on a bare statement of non-satisfaction, without reasons, was held unjustified. The fact that the goods were insured did not create any legal requirement to insure the duty element, and the availability of insurance could not defeat remission. As to inputs, procurement under the exemption notification did not provide a basis to deny remission when the inputs were subsequently destroyed. The objections raised by the Revenue were covered by earlier decisions relied upon by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Remission of duty could not be denied on the stated grounds, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where destruction of goods by fire is duly evidenced, remission cannot be refused on an unsupported finding of non-satisfaction, on the mere existence of insurance, or because the inputs were originally received under exemption notifications.

---