Remission of duty after fire loss turns on holiday-adjusted intimation, not alleged precautions or insurance recovery.

Remission of duty on sugar destroyed by fire in licensed premises could not be denied where intimation reached the Central Excise authorities on the next working day after a Sunday fire, because the departmental time limit had to be read with holidays excluded and no authorised officer was shown to be available on the holiday. Alleged inadequate precautions were irrelevant to a remission request under the governing rule, and receipt of insurance compensation did not by itself defeat the claim where the certificate showed excise duty had not been reimbursed. On those grounds, the assessee was entitled to remission relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on sugar destroyed in a fire accident could be denied for alleged delayed intimation, alleged lack of reasonable precautions, and the receipt of insurance compensation.

Analysis: The destroyed goods were in licensed premises and the accident was reported to the Central Excise authorities on the next working day after the Sunday fire. The period prescribed by the departmental trade notice had to be construed in the light of the fact that Central Excise offices do not function on Sundays, and the holiday was to be excluded in computing the time for intimation. The record did not show that an authorised officer was available on the holiday to receive the report. The claim was also supported by an insurance certificate indicating that excise duty had not been reimbursed. Considerations as to whether adequate precautions were taken to prevent the fire were held to be irrelevant for deciding a remission application under the governing rule.

Conclusion: Remission of duty could not be refused on the grounds relied upon by the adjudicating authority, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are destroyed by fire in licensed premises, timely intimation given on the next working day satisfies the departmental time requirement by excluding holidays, and neither insurance settlement nor alleged lack of precautions is a valid ground to deny remission of duty.

---