Remission of duty for fire-destroyed goods cannot be refused for delayed intimation where no Rule 21 time limit exists.

Remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire was wrongly rejected where the factory was closed on a holiday, the loss was reported soon after the incident, and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules does not prescribe a time limit for intimation of fire loss. An executive trade notice could not impose such a restriction. The further objection, based on alleged failure to use fire-prevention equipment, was unsupported by the surrounding circumstances of the accident. The rejection on both grounds was therefore unjustified, the order was set aside, and the remission claim was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire accident was rightly rejected on the grounds of delayed intimation and alleged failure to use fire-prevention equipment.

Analysis: The finished goods were destroyed in a fire accident when the factory was closed on a holiday, and the facts showed that the incident was reported through contemporaneous channels soon thereafter. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules does not prescribe any time limit for intimation of loss by fire or other natural causes, and an executive trade notice could not add such a restriction. The second ground for rejection also lacked support in the surrounding circumstances of the accident.

Conclusion: The rejection of remission on both grounds was not justified. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the remission claim on merits.

---