Per Krishna Kumar : Heard both sides. The point involved in the case is whether the appellants are entitled for the refund of duty when the consignment was cleared under bond for export purposes, were destroyed in fire in the warehouse.

2. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Sangeeta Printers & Exporters Vs. CCE, Allahabad - 1994 (73) ELT 182 (Tri.). The relevant extract from the said Order are reproduced as under:-

"Clearances for home consumption means and implies removal of the goods for marketing or consumption or utilization whereas clearance under bond always means and implies a mere transfer of goods from one place or premises to another without payment of duty for specified purposes only. Further clearance of goods for home consumption also means removal of the goods cut of customs/excise control and therefore, the owner or processor is free to deal with them as he pleases, whereas the goods removed under bond remain under overall Customs/Excise control and the persons concerned are obliged to follow the prescribed procedure."

3. The ld. Counsel drew my attention to Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which is reproduced as under:-

"Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing."

4. Thus, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the said Rule nowhere provides removal from factory it only provides that where the goods were destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident as claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for market at any time before the removal. Thus, his submission is that in the present case the removal was to take place from the warehouse for home consumption which could not take place because of the goods having been destroyed in fire. To read the word 'factory' with regard to the removal given in Rule 21 is extraneous to the provisions of the said Rule and the ld. Commissioner has wrongly held that the Rule is not attracted in this case.

5. The ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the impugned order.

6. After hearing both sides, perusal of the records, the provision of Rule 21 and the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel, I find that the case is fully covered under the said Rule and the decision relied on by the ld. Counsel. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant.