ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the request for remission of duty on the goods destroyed in fire was declined.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of acrylic yarns. On 4-3-98, appellants made a request to the Supdt. (Central Excise) regarding storage of finished goods in their raw material godown. On 16-3-98, appellants informed Range Office about a fire incident which broke out in their factory on the intervening night of 15th and
16th March, 1998. Thereafter, appellants applied for remission of duty under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, in respect of goods destroyed in fire. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denial of remission on the ground that the appellants had stored the goods in a place other than the store room, therefore, had not complied with the provisions of Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules. After granting an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The contention of the appellants is that the request for remission of duty had been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that neither any permission had been sought nor obtained for storage of goods in place other than the store room. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants sent intimation on 4-3-98 informing the Range Supdt. regarding storage of finished goods in their raw material godown and this intimation was sufficient as Range Supdt. was the appropriate authority for approving the place of storage of finished goods. The premises in which the goods were stored were the registered premises for manufacture of goods and were duly approved by the Revenue authorities. The contention of the appellants is that there is no dispute about the loss of goods in fire and the duty can only be demanded when the goods are removed from the premises. As in the present case, goods were not removed from their factory, no demand can be made. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case – (1) in the case of Quest International India Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 358; (2) Sarda Ply Wood Industries Ltd. v. CC. & C.E. reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 116; and (3) Goa Foam (Private) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 421.
5. The contention of the Revenue is that the fact remains that the finished goods were required to be kept in duly approved premises and the appellants stored the goods at a place, which was not approved for the purpose. The appellants had not sought any permission to store the goods in a place other than the store room nor any permission was granted. As the appellants stored the goods in an unapproved place, the appeal is liable to be rejected.
6. In this case, the appellants, vide letter dated 4-3-98, informed the Range Supdt. regarding storage of their finished goods in their raw material godown. The case of the Revenue is not that this permission was denied. The appellants stored the finished goods in approved factory premises. It is not a case of the Revenue that the goods were stored outside the approved factory premises and the Revenue is not disputing the loss of the goods in fire. Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules provides that manufacturer shall provide store room or other place of storage at his premises for storing the goods made in the same premises without payment of duty and every such store room or place shall be declared by the manufacturer and approved by the Commissioner. The factory premises are duly approved by the Revenue authorities and the appellants stored the finished goods in their raw material godown that too after giving intimation to the Revenue and the request was not rejected. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the appellants had not complied with the provisions to Rule 47 of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.