ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise rejecting the application for remission of duty on finished goods stored in the premises of the appellant’s factory, namely, paper bundles/reams and reels on the ground that the goods were not stored in the approved premises and therefore the provisions of Rule 49 were not attracted.
2. It is the contention of the appellants that since admittedly the goods were destroyed by fire there can be no liability to pay duty and therefore plead that the demand confirmation of Rs. 1,10,273/- be set aside. Learned Counsel also prays that the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- may be set aside.
3. The learned SDR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority which he submits are in accordance with the clear language of Rule 49.
4. On a careful consideration of the submission of both sides and noting that there is no challenge to the finding that the goods were stored outside the approved premises, although within the factory, I agree with the Commissioner’s findings that the provisions of Rule 49 do not cover the present case and that therefore the application for remission has been rightly rejected. The natural corollary of the rejection would be that the appellants are liable to pay duty and I therefore confirm the duty demand.
5. However, I am of the view that no case for imposition of penalty has been made out. In these circumstances, I therefore set aside the penalty.
6. The appeals are thus partly allowed.