Burden of proof for remission of excise duty lies on the assessee when goods are claimed lost in an unavoidable accident.

Duty on excisable goods lost or destroyed is ordinarily payable under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and remission depends on the manufacturer proving that the loss resulted from natural causes or an unavoidable accident. The burden of establishing that exception rests on the assessee, including evidence that the fire or destruction was beyond its control and that reasonable preventive steps were taken. On the stated facts, the material did not show such proof, and the burden was wrongly shifted to the department.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to remission or avoidance of duty for loss of excisable goods on the footing that the goods were destroyed by unavoidable accident or natural causes, and whether the burden of proving such loss rested on the assessee.

Analysis: Under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, duty is generally payable on excisable goods lost or destroyed, and the proviso operates only where the manufacturer satisfies the proper officer that the loss was due to natural causes or unavoidable accident. The claim for exemption therefore depends on proof by the assessee. On the facts, the fire officer's report indicated that the accident could have been caused by careless smoking by workers, and the assessee did not produce evidence showing that the fire was beyond its control or that reasonable preventive steps had been taken. The Tribunal was therefore in error in shifting the burden to the department.

Conclusion: The onus to prove unavoidable accident or destruction by natural causes lay on the assessee, and the assessee failed to discharge that burden. The questions referred were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---