Remission of duty for fire-destroyed goods upheld where stocks were kept in approved factory premises, not a separate storeroom.

Remission of duty was held to be available where goods destroyed by fire were lying in approved factory premises, even though they were not kept in a separate approved storeroom. The denial based solely on the absence of storage in an approved storeroom was unsustainable because Rule 49 was read to cover goods kept in a storeroom or in any other approved premises. As the fire loss was undisputed, the claim for remission could not be rejected on that ground alone, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible on goods destroyed in fire when the goods were lying in the factory premises but not in an approved storeroom.

Analysis: Remission was denied only on the ground that the goods were not kept in a storeroom or other approved premises. The goods were, however, lying in the factory premises, which was itself an approved premises. The loss by fire was not disputed. On a proper reading of Rule 49, goods kept either in a storeroom or in any other approved premises could qualify for remission where destruction occurred by fire or another natural cause. The denial of remission solely because the goods were not in a separate approved storeroom was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was allowable, and the rejection of the claim was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods destroyed by fire are lying in an approved factory premises, remission of duty cannot be denied merely because they were not stored in a separate approved storeroom.

---