Remission claim requires proper consideration of defence and fire incident; ex parte adjudication justified remand for fresh decision.

A remission claim under the Central Excise Rules was found to have been decided ex parte without proper consideration of the assessee's defence that exported footwear was stored in a transport godown and affected by a fire accident. The authorities had proceeded on the footing that some goods were accounted for and the balance unaccounted, but had not adequately examined the material circumstances relevant to remission under the proviso to Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and denial of remission arising from alleged non-accountal of exported footwear, decided ex parte and without proper consideration of the fire incident, warranted interference and remand.

Analysis: The lower authorities proceeded on the basis that the goods recovered were accounted for and the balance were unaccounted for, without addressing the assessee's case that the goods had been kept in a transport godown for export and were affected by a fire accident. The order was passed ex parte, and the material circumstances relevant to the claim for remission under the proviso to Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not properly examined. In these circumstances, the approach of the authorities was found unsatisfactory and inconsistent with fair adjudication.

Conclusion: The matter was held fit for remand and the impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remission claim is decided without properly considering the material defence and relevant incident, and the adjudication is ex parte, the matter may be remanded for fresh decision.

---