Excise remission cannot be refused for delayed fire intimation where the statute imposes no rigid 24-hour bar.

An order rejecting remission of excise duty was treated as appealable because it affected the assessee's rights and liability, and the appellate objection based on lack of adjudication failed under the Central Excise Act scheme. On remission, the Tribunal held that denial could not rest solely on failure to intimate a fire within 24 hours, as the cited rules did not impose such a rigid bar and executive instructions could not override the statute. The record also showed intimation to authorities and fire-fighting arrangements, so the adverse finding on lack of reasonable precautions was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against rejection of remission was maintainable; (ii) Whether remission could be denied merely because intimation of fire was not given within 24 hours and whether the assessee had failed to take reasonable precautions.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against rejection of remission was maintainable.

Analysis: The order rejecting remission was treated as an order affecting the assessee's rights and liability and was expressly made appealable. The objection that it was not an adjudication order was rejected by reference to the definition of adjudicating authority and the appellate scheme under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether remission could be denied merely because intimation of fire was not given within 24 hours and whether the assessee had failed to take reasonable precautions.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that neither Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 nor the cited statutory framework mandated rejection of remission solely for failure to intimate the fire within 24 hours. It was noted that the fires occurred on holidays, that intimation was in fact given to the authorities and local agencies, and that executive instructions could not curtail the statute. The record also showed the presence of fire-fighting arrangements, which negatived the finding of lack of precaution.

Conclusion: Remission could not be denied on the ground of delayed intimation, and the adverse findings on precautions were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting remission was set aside and relief followed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Remission under the excise regime cannot be refused merely on a rigid 24-hour intimation requirement where the statute does not impose such a limitation, and an order affecting rights and liability is appealable as an adjudication order.

---