Theft as an unavoidable accident can justify duty remission where excisable goods are lost despite reasonable security measures.

Theft of excisable goods can constitute an unavoidable accident under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where the loss occurs despite reasonable guarding arrangements and the owner could not have anticipated the wrongful act. The document notes that the theft was undisputed and promptly reported to the police, excise authorities, and insurer, while the impugned order relied on an erroneous quantity and did not properly examine the record. The remission matter was to be reconsidered afresh on the footing that the theft qualified as an unavoidable accident for Rule 49 purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether theft of excisable goods by a securityman posted at the factory constituted an unavoidable accident within the meaning of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to permit remission of duty.

Analysis: The fact of theft was not disputed, and contemporaneous intimation was given to the police, excise authorities, and insurer. The materials placed before the Commissioner also showed the quantity and value of the stolen goods, but the impugned order proceeded on an erroneous quantity and did not properly examine the record. A theft, by its nature, is an accident from the owner's standpoint, and where it occurs despite the presence of a securityman entrusted with protection of the premises, it may constitute an unavoidable accident for the purposes of Rule 49.

Conclusion: The finding that the theft was not an unavoidable accident was set aside. The remission application was directed to be reconsidered afresh, treating the theft as an unavoidable accident for the purpose of Rule 49.

Ratio Decidendi: A theft of excisable goods may amount to an unavoidable accident under Rule 49 when, despite reasonable guarding arrangements, the owner could not have anticipated the wrongful conduct causing the loss.

---