Excise duty remission excludes theft or dacoity, because deliberate removal is not an unavoidable accident under Rule 49.

Remission of excise duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is confined to goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and the provision must be strictly construed as an exception to the general levy. Theft or dacoity is a deliberate forcible removal of goods, not a natural cause or unavoidable accident, so goods lost in such circumstances are not eligible for remission. The claim for remission was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether theft or dacoity can be treated as an unavoidable accident under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to permit remission of excise duty on goods lost in such .

Analysis: Excise duty is attracted on manufacture, subject to exemption and the limited remission scheme. Rule 49 permits remission only where excisable goods are lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident. The expression 'loss' in this context refers to goods becoming unavailable for consumption, not merely loss to the manufacturer. Theft or dacoity involves deliberate forcible removal of goods and is neither a natural cause nor an accident. As remission is an exception to the general rule of levy, the provision must be strictly construed.

Conclusion: Theft or dacoity does not amount to unavoidable accident within Rule 49, and goods lost in such are not eligible for remission. The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference is answered by rejecting the claim that theft or dacoity falls within the remission provision for unavoidable accident.

Ratio Decidendi: Remission of excise duty is available only for goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and deliberate theft or dacoity is outside that limited exception.

---