2004 (3) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application based on a previous judgment.
2. Disallowance of remission of duty on goods lost in fire due to storage location.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, stating that the appellants' case is similar to a previous judgment. The Member noted that the appeal could be decided on its merits. The issue in the appeal was regarding the remission of duty on goods lost in a fire incident.

2. The remission was denied to the appellants because the goods were not stored in an approved location as required by Rule 49. However, the Member found that the goods were in the factory premises, which was an approved location at the time of the incident. The fact that the goods were not in a designated storage room did not disqualify the appellants from claiming remission. The Department did not dispute the loss of goods in the fire. Rule 49 stipulates that goods must be stored in an approved location for duty remission in case of destruction by fire or natural causes. Since the factory was an approved premise where the goods were located, the appellants' claim for remission was valid. The Member set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief as permissible by law.