Per Dr. S.L. Peeran : Both these appeals raises common question of law and facts pertaining to the same assessee and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. By OIO No. 1/05 dated 21.4.05, the Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking revision of central excise duty under Rule 21 with regard to the goods dispatched to the lorry which met with an accident resulting in spillage of 51 pieces of granite slabs meant for export leading it its destruction. As a result of this rejection, the revenue has confirmed the demand of duty by Order-in-Appeal No. 5/06 dated 10.1.06 on the ground that assessee is required to discharge duty on the quantity of polished granite slabs which were destroyed in the accident as their prayer for remission of duty has been rejected by the Commissioner. The appellants contention is that in terms of Rule 21 of CE Rules they are entitled to claim remission if the goods were destroyed due to unavoidable accident at any time before removal of the goods. It is the submission of the assessee that the place of removal has been defined under Section 4 (3) (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is as under:-

"a dep