Remission for unavoidable transport loss denied where railway wagon misplacement was only an administrative lapse, not accidental loss.

Rule 196 allowed remission only where excisable goods were lost or destroyed by an unavoidable accident during transport. Misplacement of a railway wagon was treated as a traceable administrative lapse, not an unavoidable accident, because it did not show that the goods were lost beyond the transporter's control in the manner required by the rule. The consignee, while the goods remained with the Railway authorities, was not the custodian for this purpose. A theft-based precedent was held inapplicable on the facts, and the claim for remission or non-liability to duty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether misplacement of railway wagons containing excisable goods amounted to goods being lost by an unavoidable accident during transport so as to entitle the assessee to remission of duty under Rule 196.

Analysis: Rule 196 contemplated remission only where goods were lost or destroyed by an unavoidable accident during transport. The assessee, as consignee, was not the custodian of the goods while they remained with the Railway authorities. Misplacement of a wagon was held not to be the same as loss by an unavoidable accident, since such misplacement was a traceable administrative lapse and did not establish that the goods had been lost beyond the control of the transporter in the manner contemplated by the rule. The precedent relied upon, which dealt with theft, was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: Misplacement of the wagon did not attract remission under Rule 196, and the claim for non-liability to duty failed.

---