Remission for damaged excisable goods cannot be denied for delayed intimation alone; insurance recovery needs duty-component verification.

Delay in intimating loss of damaged excisable goods was treated as a procedural lapse that did not by itself defeat remission where the extent of damage could be ascertained only after waterlogging receded. The damage arose from heavy rain and waterlogging, and the insurance settlement supported that loss had occurred. However, the refund aspect required limited verification of whether the insurance recovery included the duty component, since the record below had not examined that issue. Denial of remission solely for delayed intimation was therefore not justified, and the duty refund question was remitted for fresh scrutiny of the insurance documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on damaged excisable goods could be denied merely because intimation of loss was delayed, and whether the refund issue required verification of whether the insurance claim included the duty element.

Analysis: The goods were damaged due to heavy rain and water logging in the factory. The delay in giving intimation was treated as a procedural lapse that could not defeat the claim for remission where the extent of damage could reasonably be ascertained only after the water receded. The settlement of the insurance claim supported the occurrence of loss, but the exact question whether the insurance amount included duty had not been examined on the record before the authority below. Since the appellant produced documents to show that the insurance recovery was only towards the cost of goods, the matter required limited verification on that aspect.

Conclusion: Denial of remission solely on the ground of delayed intimation was not justified. The matter was sent back for limited examination of whether the insurance claim covered the duty component before deciding the refund of the duty deposited.

---