Remission for export goods destroyed in a customs warehouse may apply when loss occurs before removal and goods are properly accounted for.

Export goods cleared under bond and examined by customs were destroyed by fire in a customs-notified warehouse before actual export. The analysis states that, because the warehouse qualified as a place of removal and the goods were satisfactorily accounted for, the destruction was treated as occurring before removal under the Central Excise framework. On that basis, Rule 21 remission was available for loss by unavoidable accident, and the absence of proof of export did not defeat relief where there was no diversion of the goods. The remission refusal and corresponding duty demand were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty remission was payable where export goods cleared under bond were destroyed by fire in a customs-notified warehouse before actual export, and whether such destruction could be treated as destruction before removal for the purpose of remission under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared for export under bond, examined by customs, and permitted to be exported by a Let Export Order. They were then destroyed in a fire at the customs warehouse before they could be exported. The governing framework allowed export without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 subject to the conditions in Notification No. 42/2001-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 26.06.2001, and Rule 21 empowered remission where goods were lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident before removal. The expression "place of removal" under Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 included a warehouse or other place where goods were permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. Since the fire occurred in such a place and the goods were otherwise satisfactorily accounted for by contemporaneous certificates, the loss was treated as occurring before removal. The absence of proof of export did not defeat remission because the goods were destroyed before export could take place and there was no diversion of the goods.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was warranted, and the petitioner succeeded in challenging the demand and in obtaining the certificate for remission.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant remission was set aside, and the excise duty demand on the destroyed export goods could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export goods cleared under bond are destroyed by unavoidable accident in an approved warehouse before actual export, they are treated as destroyed before removal and are eligible for remission of duty if satisfactorily accounted for.

---