Remission for warehouse loss is limited to unavoidable accident; theft does not qualify for duty relief.

Remission of duty under Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is confined to loss or destruction of warehoused goods caused by unavoidable accident. Theft does not satisfy that requirement because it is a deliberate removal by a third party, not an accident, and it is not unavoidable where adequate protection against theft was not taken. Rule 225 reinforces the owner's or warehouse keeper's responsibility for unauthorised removal from the warehouse or place of production. On these facts, remission is unavailable and the claim for duty relief is rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether loss of warehoused excisable goods by theft falls within Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to entitle the assessee to remission of duty.

Analysis: Rule 147 empowers remission only where goods lodged in a warehouse are lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident. The decisive expression is "unavoidable accident", and theft cannot be treated as an accident. A deliberate removal of goods by a third party without the owner s knowledge is not an accident, nor can it be described as unavoidable where proper protection against theft was not taken. Rule 225 further supports the position that unauthorized removal of excisable goods from the place of production or warehousing attracts the statutory responsibility of the owner or warehouse keeper.

Conclusion: The assessee is not entitled to remission under Rule 147, and the claim that theft amounts to unavoidable accident is rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme does not extend remission of duty to loss by theft in the facts found, and the appeal fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Remission under Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only for loss or destruction caused by unavoidable accident, and theft is not such an accident.

---