ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. Heard. The case of the appellants prima facie stands covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Sportking India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I – 2002 (145) E.L.T. 535. Therefore, the stay application is allowed.
2. In my view, the appeal itself can be disposed of on merits. In this appeal filed against the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants, the issue relates to the remission of the duty on the goods lost in fire.
3. The remission has been disallowed to the appellants only on the ground that the goods were not lying in the store room or other approved premises in terms of proviso to Rule 49. But I find that the goods were lying at that time in the factory premises itself which was an approved premises. The fact that at that time the goods were not stored by the appellants in an approved store room did not disentitle them from the remission of duty on the goods which were admittedly lost in fire. The loss of the goods in fire had not even been disputed by the Department. The perusal of the Rule 49 reveals that the goods should be either stored in the storage room or any other approved premises for the purpose of claiming remission of duty in the event of destruction of goods by fire or any other natural cause. The factory being the approved premises where the goods were lying at that time therefore, the appellants’ claim for remission of duty could not be rejected. The case of the appellants stands squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above referred case.
4. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief if any permissible under the law.