JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath , J.—This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal [ 2007 (216) E.L.T. 59 (Tribunal) ] holding that the raw materials/capital goods which are used in the premises for production would not be hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The assessee is a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing herbal extracts, fine chemicals etc. On 20-11-2004 a fire accident took place in the premises of the assessee. It was intimated to the jurisdictional Superintendent who visited the premises for verification. Accordingly a mahazar was drawn and the respondent was asked to furnish the details of the actual loss of the capital goods/raw material/consumable/imported/procured indigenously duty free under the provisions of Notification No. 52/2003-Customs dated 31-3-2003 and also under the Notification No. 22/03 dated 31-3-2003. The respondent by the letter dated 10-5-2005 has furnished the details. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the concession of duty of Rs.12,83,578/- foregone on the imported raw material/capital goods shold not be recovered under Section 72 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, with interest. On consideration of the reply an order was passed and the proceedings were dropped Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who allowed the appeal and confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Rule 6 would not affect the case of the assessee and hence this appeal by the revenue. 2. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether Explanation to Rule 6 is attracted to the facts of the case? 2. When the goods are treated as work-in-progress, would they be covered by the expression during handing and consequently hit by Explanation to Rule 6? 3. Whether Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted to the finished goods only or it includes the inputs and the goods-work-in-progress? 2. When the goods are treated as work-in-progress, would they be covered by the expression during handing and consequently hit by Explanation to Rule 6? 3. Whether Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted to the finished goods only or it includes the inputs and the goods-work-in-progress? The learned counsel appearing for the revenue contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous in as much as the fact that the subject matter of the goods have been destroyed is hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules. It is contended that when the goods are lost or destroyed in natural causes from the place of procurement to manufacturing premises during handling and storage of the manufacture's premises the Explanation stands attracted. 3. Heard counsels. 4. Explanation to Rule 6 of the Central Excise {Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, reads as follows:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that subject of goods shall be deemed not to have been used for the intended purpose even if any of the quantity of the subject goods is lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents during transport from the place of procurement to the manufacturer's premises or from the manufacturer's premises to the place of procurement or during handling or storage in the manufacture's premises. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the facts and circumstances involved, duty cannot be demanded on the goods which have been destroyed due to unavoidable accident/natural causes on the ground that they have not been used for the intended purpose. It was further held that the raw materials/capital goods which are in the premises of production would not be hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules is amply clear. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the goods have been destroyed by accidental fire. The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the expression "handling" used in the Explanation means usage of goods and extends up-to the point when further process on the goods stop. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the goods have been destroyed by accidental fire. The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the expression "handling" used in the Explanation means usage of goods and extends up-to the point when further process on the goods stop. Therefore, according to him, the goods would be covered by the expression "during handling" and they would be hit by the Explanation. The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that even the "work-in-progress" material would be covered by the Explanation to Rule 6 is incorrect. 6. The Tribunal has rightly passed the order which does not call for interference. The Explanation to Rule 6 is clearly not attracted in the present case. There is no error committed by the Tribunal, that warrants any interference, it is well reasoned order. Hence we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for any interference. Accordingly the substantial questions of law are answered in fovour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.