1996 (7) TMI 151 - HC - Central Excise

Property confiscation invalidated, fine imposed, theft not 'unavoidable accident,' appellant liable under Rule 225. Appeal dismissed.

The court held that confiscation of property was not valid, a fine could be imposed, and the levy of shortage duty was confirmed. The appellant's argument ... Remission of duty - 'Unavoidable accident' - Meaning Issues:Interpretation of Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules regarding remission of duty on missing goods due to theft.Analysis:The case involved a Tea Estate inspected by Central Excise authorities, revealing a shortage of tea due to theft. The authorities issued a show cause notice for penalty, confiscation of property, and duty imposition. The Collector imposed a penalty, which was reduced on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Government set aside the penalty but confirmed other aspects. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of confiscation and duty imposition. The court held that confiscation of property was not valid, and a fine could be imposed. The levy of shortage duty was confirmed. The appellant argued for remission under Rule 147, citing theft as an 'unavoidable accident.' The appellant relied on a Calcutta High Court judgment supporting loss by theft under Rule 147. However, the High Court of Delhi's decision under the Customs Act highlighted the absence of the term 'unavoidable accident' in Section 23, making a distinction. The court emphasized that theft cannot be considered an accident and ruled that Rule 147 does not cover loss by theft. The court referenced Rule 225, holding the owner responsible for goods' protection against theft. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to remission under Rule 147, dismissing the appeal with no costs awarded.