https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339241 The judge allowed the appeal against the denial of remission of duty on goods destroyed by fire. The court found that the fire resulted from bio-chemical and chemical reactions, not intentional acts by the appellant. The judge clarified that the term "unavoidable accident" under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules requires reasonable care, not absolute prevention. Emphasizing the lack of preventive measures for an accident does not apply to destruction by natural causes, the judge concluded that the denial of remission was unjustified, setting aside the demand confirmation and allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:04:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339241 The judge allowed the appeal against the denial of remission of duty on goods destroyed by fire. The court found that the fire resulted from bio-chemical and chemical reactions, not intentional acts by the appellant. The judge clarified that the term "unavoidable accident" under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules requires reasonable care, not absolute prevention. Emphasizing the lack of preventive measures for an accident does not apply to destruction by natural causes, the judge concluded that the denial of remission was unjustified, setting aside the demand confirmation and allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339241