Unavoidable accident in duty remission disputes over theft or dacoity of excisable goods was referred to a Larger Bench.

The article addresses whether theft or dacoity of excisable goods can qualify as loss by unavoidable accident for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It notes conflicting Tribunal Bench views and rival High Court decisions on the meaning of "unavoidable accident" in this context. Because the issue required resolution by a Larger Bench, the order did not finally determine the remission claim on merits and instead referred the matter for authoritative decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether theft or dacoity of excisable goods can be treated as loss by unavoidable accident for the purpose of remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The order noted conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal and rival High Court decisions on the meaning of "unavoidable accident" in the context of remission of duty for goods lost in theft or dacoity. As the controversy required resolution by a larger Bench, no final adjudication on the merits of the remission claim was recorded in this order.

Outcome: The matter was referred to the Larger Bench for decision.

---